Shutter Island is a psychological thriller directed by Martin Scorsese starring Leonardo Dicaprio. The film follows the investigation of an insane asylum on Shutter Island. The federal Marshall, Teddy, is investigating a missing persons case because a prisoner, a supposed Rachel Solando. As the movie plays out, the investigation points to the asylum being a corrupt facility that practices experiments on patients. Teddy decides that he is going to get to the bottom of it and expose the island and its workers. During the final act, we find that Teddy is actually a patient at the facility and his investigation was an elaborate treatment that featured role play to get him to admit that he is actually Andrew Laeddis. The entire movie plays with your mind and subverts your expectations.

The film certainly begs for a second watch through in order to fully form a conclusion. I for one, wanted to believe that Dicaprio’s character was still “Teddy” but the staff on Shutter Island shut him up via hallucinogens in order to cover up their experiments. However, looking back, the clues given throughout the film all support the argument that he was in fact a patient at the hospital. While I have accepted the fact that Andrew/Teddy is in fact a patient there, the question now becomes, did the character relapse at the end of the movie? Or did he willingly go to “The Lighthouse” in order to end his pain knowing he was Andrew.

The character asks his partner, is it better “to live as a monster, or to die as a good man?” which prompts the viewer to question which version of Dicaprio’s character is conscious. Scorsese clearly left it open ended and intends for the viewer to make the final decision. The film is interesting because it finds the viewer getting lost in it. We find ourselves having trouble distinguishing truth as the line gets blurred between what is real and what is a hallucination.  We route for Teddy throughout the entire film only to find that he is the worst patient on the island. It shines a light on mental health as well because the viewer is essentially put into the mind of Teddy/Andrew with no way of knowing what reality is and what delusion is.

Inglorious Basterds is a film directed by Quentin Tarantino that finds a group of Jewish- American Nazi hunters trying to take down top German officers including Hitler himself at a film premier of a German propaganda film. This is one of my favorite films of all time, and Tarantino is easily in my top 3 directors. The way he is able to tell his story while keeping the audience engaged is unparallel. His humor highlights his films for me and his use of dialogue is unique.

Assuming whoever is reading this, I will touch upon a few scenes that stand out to me in this film. In the opening scene, Hans Landa, a German SS officer, is in the home of a French family. Landa is a pleasant, well mannered person. However the entire scene, the viewer knows there is something awful that is going to happen. Tarantino uses dialogue to build suspense, and a lot of it. The scene seems to last over 20 minutes and it’s just two men talking. All of Landa’s subtle hints that he knows the family is hiding a family of Jews are present in the dialogue and must be picked up on by the viewer. For instance, he asks for milk over a drink because “after all this is a dairy farm” this alerts the viewer that Landa is suspicious of this family. His pleasant demeanor is sinister and evil. And through his conversation alone, he is able to exploit the Frenchman’s anxiety to figure out where the Jews are hiding.

Another suspense moment Tarantino builds is when he is speaking to Shosanna. Something as subtle as ordering a pastry and ensuring that we wait for the cream to be put on top has us sitting on the edge of our seats as viewers. This conversation eventually leads NOWHERE and it takes up a chunk of the movie, yet we find ourselves filled with anxiety and suspense as to what is going to happen between these two who were “acquainted”. The conversation ends with Landa sinisterly saying he has another question, but it slipped his mind. One may find themselves watching the rest of the film waiting for that plot point to be revealed, only to find it never is. It was a conversation between an SS officer and a Jewish woman hiding in plain sight. Although this is a fictional piece, this scene highlights the tense anxiety felt by all those who experienced German occupied territories in WWII.

Tarantino does a masterful job at pulling the viewer into his worlds. He somehow inserts some sort of charm in his psychopathic ragtag group of Nazi hunters as well. The conclusion of the film finds two of the “basterds” engaging in a massacre of hundreds of men and women associated with the Nazi party. Somehow he adds humor to this in a way I can’t even explain as the Jewish men take revenge on those who are trying to exterminate their race. To explain a Tarantino movie is one of the hardest things one can do, you have to witness firsthand what he does to have an opinion on it, which in my opinion is what makes him so great.

“Cache (hidden)” is a French psychological thriller that was directed by Michael Haneke. Of the films we have studied so far, this film stands out in many ways. The first thing I noticed was the fact that there is little to no non-diagetic sound through the entire film, which includes a score. This style definitely allowed for Haneke to play around with our expectations, as well as build suspense. A family living in France is being terrorized by a stalker who leaves video tapes of the family’s home. This alarms the Laurent’s and they begin to suspect who it may be. We learn that the main protagonist, Georges, has a hunch as to who it may be. His wife begins to question what he is hiding from her. As the story plays out, we learn that when Georges was six, his parents adopted an orphan named Majid whose parents used to work for them and were murdered in a massacre. Georges does not want to share his parent’s attention or his belongings to the new boy, and creates lies that ultimately find the orphan boy to be sent away to an orphanage.

The videos lead Georges to his old “brother” who swears he has nothing to do with the tapes. Things escalate and Georges becomes pathetically desperate as to how he handles the situation, which led me to believe that he may not be a good man. Majid calls Georges to come back to his apartment after he was falsely accused to kidnapping Georges’ son. Majid says “I wanted you to witness this” and slits his throat. The next day, Georges is confronted by Majid’s son, who wanted to speak with him to see how a man acts with a guilty conscience. During the credit roll, we see Majid’s son talking to Georges’ son after school.

The plot was intense, even with a lack of music. The suspense build from the “camera” (the one within the film) was very well done. There are points in time where minutes go by of just a street with cars driving by; causing the viewer to fill with anxiety as they wait to see what unfolds. The plot is left open to interpretation and (for me) definitely requires a second watch to find all of the “hidden” clues left behind that may lead me to draw a conclusion as to who was leaving the tapes and why. The ending I had to watch over 3 times before noticing Haneke’s intent for the school steps. Majid’s son is conversing with Georges’ son discreetly at the bottom right corner of the screen, leading me to believe that the likely “stalker” was him all along. This conclusion however has holes in it which need to be supported by finding more clues.

The 1967 hit “Bonnie and Clyde” directed by Arthur Penn was the latest film studied in my film class and boy was it different. A bloody and tragic tale of the infamous couple, this movie pushed the envelope in terms of violence and sex.  The films we’ve studies so far, violence has been minimal. Granted, there haven’t been movies that featured criminals and the most violence we’ve seen thus far was in Sunset Boulevard when Norma guns down her beloved Joe or in Casablanca where we see a few shootouts, all with minimal blood or gore. In Citizen Kane and Rear Window, the subtlest sexual innuendos are felt. Miss torso with a shot of her topless from behind has been the most sexual image we’ve seen. In Bonnie and Clyde, we open the move with a topless Bonnie from the head down. The minute I saw that, I knew this movie was going to be different.

The movie focuses on the love between the couple, and their bank robbing spree them and their gang go on. The blood that is spilled on their journey is vibrant. Every gunshot that hits a person spills blood in a unique, unbefore seen way. There’s blood splatter on windows, a gushing headshot, and a gruesome massacre via submachine guns that LITTERS the couple with bullets. The blood itself isn’t the only factor that impressed me, but the way their bodies reacted to said violence. Buck, Clyde’s brother, eventually died from his wound, and the camera zooms in to his hand twitching the same way a bug’s does when we kill it. Another example comes from the final moments of the movie when Bonnie and Clyde’s bodies convulse in ways that disturb the viewer.

A main plot point is Clyde’s anxiety about having sex with Bonnie. He claims “I’m not a lover” multiple times and refuses Bonnie’s advances. This is a huge turn from what we’ve seen so far. Not only is sex heavily implied on screen, but it shows the main male protagonists vulnerability. Clyde isn’t the typical cold hearted criminal; he is sensitive and has feelings.  Bonnie gets annoyed by this and blows up on Clyde, where Clyde reacts like a sad puppy. This is a total role reversal in terms of the typical relationship between a man and woman in love at the time.

Penn uses the viewer’s expectations to subvert them, both in his depiction of the topics stated above, and through his filming. The POV cuts that show Clyde’s view of looking around the bank, and the different action scenes shot from different angles were definitely different, but one scene comes to mind that stood out. A picnic takes place with the gang and Bonnie’s family. Bonnie has been dying to see her mother and if finally happens here, and Bonnie learns how much her and her mother have drifted. The scene is shot in some sort of distortion that led me to believe it was some sort of flashback or dream, but it was happening in real time in the film. What Penn’s intention was will take another watch for me to determine. The movie definitely seems to be a part of a “New Wave” of Hollywood at the time.

“The 400 Blows” is a 1959 “French New Wave” film directed by Francois Truffaut. It was an interesting look into the life of a young boy named Antoine who faces a troubled life both at home, and in school. The film was considered groundbreaking at the time, and ushered new film making methods at the time. In comparison to other movies that I’ve studied in my “Intro to Film Studies” class, this movie intended to take those traditional methods of film and toss them out the window. This is evident not only in the plot, but also in the film making process.

The narrative explored a plot that didn’t have any extravagant settings or a heroic conclusion. Instead it showed the life of a troubled young boy living the mundane life that many people live. Antoine constantly misbehaves and finds himself getting in trouble left and right. He skips out on school, runs away from home on multiple occasions, and only gets along with his friend Rene, who joins Antoine on most of his “adventures”. He is not necessarily abused and he has what many consider on the surface, to be a normal family life.  His behavior is not a product of any physical abuse, aside from the usual corporal punishment that was normal in 1959. I found myself thinking “why the hell is this kid doing all of this?” I found Antoine to be somewhat unsympathetic whenever he misbehaved, but I did feel bad for him when his parents would show him almost no affection, and when they did, it seemed to get him to do something that benefitted them. It isn’t until this pattern of his parents pretending to like him and then lashing out again that we learn why Antoine keeps acting up. He is totally lost in this world and has nobody to turn to except his friend Rene (who is equally as rebellious). It is eventually revealed that Antoine’s father is not his real father, that his mother had him out of wedlock, and that he was supposed to be aborted and would’ve been, had his grandmother not stepped in. There are all trials and tribulations that films prior would dare explore.

In terms of the way it was shot, Truffaut subverts all expectations of you believe a movie should look. His camera work is “wobbly” so to speak, because it seems that Truffaut intends that the viewer feel as if he/she is in the room with Antoine. Films we’ve studied from earlier periods seem to have their cameras in a stationary position. If they were to follow a character around, the camera seemed to be on some sort of track that ensured it was stationary. Truffaut’s decision to film on location lets him move the camera around as he wishes. This expectation that the scene could literally go anywhere builds a sense of freedom, even though we as viewers have no control over the story. Truffaut essentially breaks the chains that are felt in films prior, and it’s done brilliantly.

Sunset Boulevard is a classic film that tells the story of a struggling Hollywood writer who stumbles upon a relic of the silent film era in an actress named Norma Desmond. The film explores the pressured of Hollywood during the golden age of cinema. The mise-en-scene immediately depicts her instability without her speaking much. She calls William Holden’s character, Joe, from her window she’s wearing sunglasses inside, and you can tell she’s been looking out for somebody and you get the impression that very little goes past her. Joe enters the empty house. The atmosphere that’s set up is eerie. The house is empty except for her butler. The scene continues and the mystery behind this character grabs your attention just from the set alone. There’s something off with her, but you can’t put your finger on it until the movie unfolds and you learn the truth. The set is just part of it. Norma dresses as though shes frozen in time; as if her last movie was the last time she got out of the house. Her makeup exaggerates her crazy eyes. Each of these factors tell you something is off about Norma Desmond, and its only the first few minutes meeting her.

The film explores taboo subjects for the time, such as gender roles.  Norma is essentially the “man” in the movie. She constantly buys Joe clothes and such. He has nowhere to go and feels trapped. He needs the money to get his car back, and feels bad for Norma’s mental state. What I find particularly interesting is that it tackles mental health and the pressures of Hollywood within a Hollywood film. In 1950, mental health wasn’t an often talked about subject, let alone a subject that would be tackled in a big Hollywood production. Norma constantly needs to be reassured that she is special and needed. However the world has forgotten her and she cannot process it. She has made multiple attempts on her own life, and in the end goes mad and commits murder. Joe’s feeling of being trapped is a feeling that many people have felt in relationships. It raises the question “is Norma crazy as a product of the pressures she feels to stay relevant?” granted the ending is a little over the top and supports that she’s just insane, but these are questions that have likely never been raised in Hollywood before. The scenes where Norma is going through cosmetic alterations are real things actors and actresses went through, as touched on in Looking at Movies: an Introduction to Film.

Casablanca is one of those movies that you could watch at different stages of your life and with each viewing, a greater appreciation emerges. My uncle forced me to watch it when I was young; I was probably around 12-13 years old. I had heard of Casablanca before. I grew up watching classic movies because my mother essentially forced me to (which I thank her for to this day.) At this time, I had a goal to watch all top 100 movies on AFI’s “greatest films of all time” and Casablanca was number 3. My uncle knew I loved movies set in WWII and knew about my goal to watch all these classics. He brought the DVD over my house and said to me “you might not enjoy this movie now, but if you watch it later in life you’ll appreciate it more, it’s just something you have to see.” He was right. I thought the movie to be dull and confusing. Fast forward to the present day and I have seen the movie 3 times. It wasn’t until my most recent viewing, did I realize what he meant.

My most recent viewing saw me focusing in on all the subtle details of the movie and essentially trying to decipher why Casablanca has stood the test of time and is revered by all. It goes without saying that the plot is rich. Every character is memorable. Every time a character interacts with another, it moves the plot forward. Take your eyes off the screen for a mere 2 seconds, and you could miss a pivotal sentence that could change your view of one character or explain the motives of another. The movie explores the greater good and selflessness. Rick’s arc is a total metamorphosis, at the beginning, he is a stern man who “doesn’t stick his neck out for nobody” he seems to only care about himself and his friend Sam, as well as his staff. He blows off the feelings of the women who love him and lets a customer be taken by police after the victim pleads with him for help. It isn’t until the love of his life that broke him showed up in his café does everything change. As the story progresses, you learn why Rick is the way he is. You see snippets of good in his heart, like when a Bulgarian couple needs money for transit to get out of Casablanca and Rick knows that they will resort to lewd actions, he helps them by fixing his roulette game in his club. You find out he used to be a freedom fighter, and that this all changed when his heart was broken by woman he loved. These events foreshadow the culmination of the plot in which rick sacrifices his love for the greater good. The plot is phenomenal, the characters are all so complex, but what sets Casablanca apart from every other movie in the past 100+ years? There are thousands of great movies with great plots.

The movie pulls you into its world. The hustle and bustle of an occupied city where every non-native person is trying to get out is an incredible display. Every moment seems to keep you in suspense and the feeling of danger surrounds each frame. There is a searchlight circling around at all times, it’s even visible from inside the nightclub and illuminates from the windows. When Rick is feeling depressed because of Ilsa’s return, the lighting says it all. The black and white lighting conveys the emotions of our protagonist without uttering a word. You see half of Rick’s face and yet feel his emotion. When Rick reads the goodbye letter Ilsa leaves him as he is about to depart, the rain smudges her writing and the ink runs down the page rendering it illegible. It is a moment that not only is a visual representation of Rick’s feelings; it also captures Rick’s impending change as a human. One minute it is legible cursive which was Rick’s outlook in the world, defined and optimistic. As the rain hits the page, the ink smudges just like Rick’s optimism and hope, which sends him on an emotional downward spiral that we see at the beginning of the movie.  It isn’t until the events that take place after Lazlo and Ilsa enter his club that he regains his sense of self. This culmination of all the subtle, moving parts is what my uncle was talking about all those years ago. The movie can give something special to people from all walks of life. That is why it has stood the test of time.

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.