Curious George?

After reading a very interesting article about the film Michael Clayton, my perspective of the movie seemed to have changed instantaneously. The author’s main point was very different from what I was thinking, perhaps, because I saw the movie from a male’s perspective. The author’s main point was that this was not typical corporate, drama film. We are so use to seeing the films show the corporations as corrupt, and their greed ending up plummeting them in the end. This film is nothing like that. How about killing yourself softly, but being reborn again in the same process. I found it quite interesting that from a woman’s perspective if a man is weak in one aspect of his life, than he is weak in all aspects of his life. I didn’t agree with the claim that the author made when she said, “Michael can fix any lawful mess, but he can’t seem to fix anything in his personal life”. Obviously, in my opinion, the author didn’t understand the movie, nor did she understand the ending too well. Yes, it is true that Michael was an avid gambler, a divorced man, a bother that didn’t accept his own bothers mistakes, and a petty friend that just couldn’t see the moral side, but throughout the movie, Michael can see what he is doing wrong, or moreover, knows that the buildings collapsing around him are of his doing.

            What is important to my understanding is of this article is the substantial evidence in this film that money is the root of all evil. Though Michael is a successful lawyer, he makes money by cleaning up the often protruded unmoral mess that corporate America has created. In contrasting fashion, Michael cannot fix, or clean up the problems he has acquired in his personal life. He is an avid gambler and a divorced bachelor. Just like the U-north company, Michael sees that his lifestyle is affecting something or someone rather bigger than himself. What is puzzling about this article is that Michael cannot see that being the fixer, or janitor for that matter, could be adding to the unmoral mess as a whole. Though the floor looks shiny, bacteria still roams the premises. My own perception has been changed by the article I have read because the article densely and lucidly insinuates that you can have all the money, corporal power, and good name, but your conscience is the real judge that must defined the condemned.  This article basically conveys that while you may viewed as heavenly in the minds of others, your mind is the defining judge.

Source Citation: Ross, Deborah. “Gorgeous George.” Spectator. 305.9346 (29 Sept. 2007): p62. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Pierce College. 10 Nov. 2009 <http://www.pierce.ctc.edu:2061/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=puya65247&gt;.

 

 

 

What is important to my understanding is of this article is the substantial evidence in this film that money is the root of all evil. Though Michael is a successful lawyer, he makes money by cleaning up the often protruded unmoral mess that corporate America has created. In contrasting fashion, Michael cannot fix, or clean up the problems he has acquired in his personal life. He is an avid gambler and a divorced bachelor. Just like the U-north company, Michael sees that his lifestyle is affecting something, or someone rather, bigger than himself. What is puzzling about this article is that Michael cannot see that being the fixer, or janitor for that matter, could be adding to the unmoral mess as a whole. Though the floor looks shiny, bacteria still roams the premises. My own perception has been changed by the article I have read because the article densely and lucidly insinuates that you can have all the money, corporal power, and good name, but your conscience is the real judge that must defined the condemned.  This article basically conveys that while you may viewed as heavenly in the minds of others, your mind is the defining judge.

Source Citation: Ross, Deborah. “Gorgeous George.” Spectator. 305.9346 (29 Sept. 2007): p62. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Pierce College. 10 Nov. 2009 <http://www.pierce.ctc.edu:2061/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=puya65247&gt;.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l12IQe98vE

The movie that I chose to do my blog post on was the Movie Michael Clayton. This heart wrenching film gave way for the viewer to see the movie through their own lens. So many questions are raised in this film that it seems only fitting to write a critical essay about it. Michael Clayton, the main character, not only finds himself asking critical questions of himself, but of others as well. The reason why I liked this film was the reason that the main character was just as oblivious as the audience was throughout the entire movie. He constantly wondered what he was supposed to do. Everyone asks Michael, “Who are you?  Are you a cop, are you a lawyer?” The same questions that Michael’s adversaries find asking of him, we simultaneously find asking the same. There are parts in this film that the director gives settle hints on what the theses was suppose to be, though, not exactly leading us on the right path. In one instant, the director shows a framing shot of Michael at the beginning of the film in his car, which is the same place the film leaves off until the end. In this shot, Michael escapes his car quickly and he scurries towards a horse pasture. Why does he do this? What are his motives? This is question that leads the audience to the theses of the film and gives a sense of who the character is throughout the film. Through a number of rather comedic scenes and difficult scenarios, we were able to piece the theses together for ourselves.  What is so ironic about this film is that you really don’t solve the mystery of the theses until you have solved the mystery of the film. This film, however, appropriately gives a warm feeling of what is supposed to be by giving the main character a conscience. Until the middle of the movie or towards the end, we never really know what Michael’s stature is as either a hero or a villain. A pivotal point of this movie, or perhaps a pivotal character, Arthur, makes the signs in the maze that we must follow. 

                A genius in his imagery, Arthur makes a case against a company that he once helped defend for twelve years. At one point in the film, Michael asks of Arthur, “Do you know who you are? You are a law firm legend.” Arthur responds, “No, I am Sheba the God of Death.” What does this exactly mean? It’s the theses of course.  Through all of the fame and successes Arthur has acquired, he knows that somewhere along the line he broke the law of morality. He tells Michael that he has killed thousands of people though the weed killer product that he once supported. By stripping in a deposition office, Arthur, the weed killer company’s biggest hope for winning a 3 billon dollar law suit against them, tries to turn the case against the company. He purposely tries to drop the case so that the company could get what it deserved, bankruptcy. What are we supposed to think when the whole world is based on profit? What is Michael supposed to think about his best friend, who used to be intent on making money, suddenly turning holy on him? We find ourselves asking, “Why is this film called Michael Clayton?” Maybe this question of “who is Michael Clayton?” is a question that the writer wants us to ask of ourselves as well. Who are we? Economics have been so successful in taking away are conscience. Or does it?

He hides nothing!

Michael Moore’s highly controversial and explicit documentary, “Sicko”, screams his thesis loud and clear. You don’t even have to see the first ten minutes of the film because it is so absurdly blatant. Michael Moore clearly says that the United States healthcare system stinks! He bashes the healthcare system like the piece of rubbish it is. Not only does Moore make our healthcare system look worse than it really is by showing a third world country’s fidelity towards its citizens as compared to ours, but he hits us where it hurts. He goes to the most horrible, dystrophic place where the wrong -doers dwell, and shows how they have a more immaculate, free healthcare benefit. I mean, Guantanamo Bay is supposed to be a place where the most dangerous prisoners in the world are to be incarcerated! In all their self provoking actions, they still get better healthcare benefits than their adversaries of September 11^th.  Moore argues his point very well as he gives examples of people who were “supposed” to have medical insurance, however, were not fully compensated because of a faulty contract. Moore ingeniously compares people of identical, or close to it, problems but in different countries. For example, the mother’s child that died in the United States as compared to the mother’s daughter who survived in Britain. Moore even identifies the small things such as a wait for medical attention in the United States and a wait in Canada.  Moore gives the United States healthcare system a hellish persona. In contrast to writing an essay, this film allowed him to be as subjective as he wanted to be, but also seem like the good guy.

                                One the most memorable scenes in my opinion was when Moore took all of the sickly 9/11 heroes to receive medical attention from the medical staff at Guantanamo Bay. High-energy, gritty music played in the behind as Moore portrayed a humoristic figure, and the American flag waved in the wind. Could Moore have pulled this off in an essay? I don’t think so. It is very hard to believe that in a literary setting Moore could wind up a bunch of post 9/11 victims, and convince them to join him in a journey to make a complete idiot out the United States government.  One of the biggest, smallest bits in this one scene is where he blocked out the exact way he got to Cuba because the “United States” wouldn’t  allow it, which in turn, made even more of a joke out of the United States government. I think if Moore would have written this film as an essay he would have to present more from each side. He wouldn’t necessarily have the pictures and people to make things seem so “bad”, and also make things seem so “good.” I found it very interesting that Moore mentioned the free healthcare system in France, but vaguely talked about how much in taxes the citizens paid yearly. In an essay, if Moore told me that healthcare in France was free I would ask, “How much are they paying in taxes?” In the film, I, like other people, might not have pondered that question because the clips were displayed as heavenly. Although Michael Moore makes us believe in “his” truth in a film, an essay would probably falsify most of his claims. As much as we want to believe that documentaries are real, they are just another genre of film. There are still cuts, there are still edits, and there are still perceived opinions. In contrast, an essay might be a little harder medium to persuade with.

Not a stupid white man

            The essay I chose to write about was Not a stupid white man: the democratic context of Michael Moore’s documentaries.   This essay explained the provocative motives behind Michael Moore’s politically explicit films. This essay answers the questions of, what are his motives. Why does Moore continue to write and direct his films base on the American eye? Very are articulate and intellectual, Moore aims to stop advocating the false, and start elaborating the truth. Moore even says in one of his acceptance speeches that the United States is based on fiction. Could this explain way Moore doesn’t write any action films? I mean, just think about it, Hollywood is as fake as it can get. Through popular films like Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, and his books and essays, Moore couldn’t be anything but real. Through all of his movies he directly asks the question of, “Why are you so corrupt”? In figurative terms, Moore’s black lashings of our government are the mouthpiece of the people who are too afraid to say anything. Moore single handily puts the real American citizens on his back and confronts the political giants.  Why is Moore motivated to getting the truth out? It’s simple. He is an American citizen. He presses that issue in every film he does or advocates for. Moore is anything but a stupid white man, as the title suggests, and he plans on letting the political giants know that statement is true. Perhaps he is just being a citizen, but he is anything but average.

There were a couple of quotes that I found that drew parallels to many of Michael Moore’s films theses. The first quote that I thought was particularly interesting was, “”Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there’s nothing they can do about it now because it’s done, it’s awesome and if I have anything to say about it, you’ll see it this summer–because, after all, it’s a free country” (Moore, “Disney”). Through this quote Moore wittily uses the political knife that is owned by the powerful politicians. Sure, by seeing that Moore arbitrarily attacks The Bush Administration in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, Disney has a reason not to show his movie. Another genius escape and pressure builder, Moore dispositions the Republican Party in an uncomfortable spot, and at the same time Disney for not showing his movie. He calls Disney too afraid to air his film because they are afraid of the repercussions they will receive from the government (referring to the governor of Florida).  The last and second quote that I found interesting from Moore was, “We live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. “We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons…. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you.” Although this quote was referring to President Bush, this might pertain to Moore as well. I mean he only shows the blissful moments in films such as Sicko and illustrates them in the light he wants it to be shown in. Contradicting his manners, Moore exhibits the same manners as President Bush does, just in a manner that most blind the American citizens.

Not Easily Broken, but easily influenced.

It is hard to find an appropriate word in the English language to describe T.D Jakes’s heartfelt flim, Not Easily broken. Hardly a comedy, Jakes beautifully illustrates the typical marriage in the 21^th century scope. The need to have a physical attraction between you and your spouse might be more meaningful than their personality, but lust seems to be trumped by love more often than not, or moreover, the idea of love. Although this movie was not intended to appeal to the comedic shrine, it simultaneously reached that domain while creating a heart wrenching drama. Based upon his book, Not Easily broken breaks through the barrier of stereotype that the book is always far better than the movie, perhaps, making each element of storytelling great in their given fields.

                I have not read T.D Jake’s Not Easily Broken; however, I see no need to. Most movies that are based upon a book stray far away from the book, and the two entities seem to differ more than they relate. On the other hand, I won’t get to know if the book had far more details or if there were more storylines in the movie, but I would like to stay oblivious. I would like to keep this movie in the category of great films, as it complies with my criteria for great films. Haphazardly I don’t feel the need or desire to put this movie in the category of sub-par movies. If I were judging this movie on how well it stayed in the parameters of relation with the book, perhaps the movie wouldn’t have been as good.

                The main reason I loved this film is the fact that it was able to emotionally appeal to the audience. In my opinion, empathy is the highest trait of understanding a human can attain. If you can relate with a specific audience or person you at emotional hierarchy that very few reach. Enriched with tear jerking storylines, Jakes is able appeal to his audience and make them feel that they are not alone in trying to find deeper meaning in relationships. Through powerful characters of each sex, Jake is able to relate to the problems of not only a man, but a woman also. Not Easily Broken seems to make the audience understand themselves through a hybrid style of comedy and dramatics, while making them stronger in the same process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enGPKeZ3Od4

Blog Post 1:”Dramatics can make anyone seem immortal.”

Are there really such things as protagonists in a reality point of view? I mean when I think of superheroes, I think of fictional cartoon characters such as Superman and Batman. I mean they are immortal in every since of the term, lets face it, nothing can hurt them. Can real people living in this harsh reality endure the hand that the universe has dealt them? The commercial I decided to share is called Fall down 7, Get up 8. The commercial title in itself depicts a portrait of triumph and perseverance. I mean, just think about it. How can you fall down seven times and get up eight times? Impossible isn’t it? The sports star, Dwayne Wade, attempts to sell his Converse shoes using dramatics and camera tricks that are second to none. At the beginning of the commercial, the self proclaimed superhero (The commercial plots give that assumption) Dwayne Wade goes up for a slam dunk and is fouled hard as he thunderously plummets to the ground. In synonymous comparison to the Dark Night where it seemed as though Batman had been defeated in the beginning of the film, this commercial uses that same eerie, uncanny introduction. Before the commercial even begins, the audience is already convinced that the main character is a hero because of his airiness portrayed by the music and his wild popularity as a professional basketball player. The beginning of the commercial was the most interesting to me because of the camera angle the director used. The director used a low, focused camera angle that moved closer to the character. With his head down, in a fashion that showed that he was defeated, flashbacks of the character’s past times of falling down were put into effect. The director goes back to the character’s early times of being in the same situation. It seemed as though the director has this image in his head that the character had already been in this situation before. The character’s head doesn’t come up until the seventh fall of his flashback. In a kind of arrogant, conceded fashion the character picks up his head, nods, and makes an almost indomitable face that told every one that the fall didn’t faze him. Could it be déjà vu? If there are shoes out there that can make me that tough, I want them. Dramatics can make anyone look immortal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzvFAcbS0RE