Saturday, December 24, 2016

Rogue One (2016) yeah, Disney! Since buying out George Lucas, the Star Wars franchise is once again a pleasing cinematic experience. I am delighted by Disney’s treatment of Star Wars thus far. It is strange that selling Jedi to the empire has helped make Star Wars movies enjoyable again. Either way, Rogue One is amazing. It some ways it helps blot out the Lucas prequels and that is perfectly fine with me.

The cinematography and story were incredible. I not only enjoyed the movie but also appreciated the effort. Unlike the Lucas prequels, Rogue One stays true to the original tone and nature of the holy trilogy. It is now apparent that George needed to walk away years ago. One simply cannot forgive him for ruining the original trilogy. I have them on VHS, and I need to convert a backup one day. However, today’s copies, which one can buy easily, are only the Lucas-rewrite versions, and they are unwatchable as far as I am concerned, utter garage.

I love The Force Awakens, and I thought Rogue One was just as good, if not better. The one thing that I will say about the new movies is that the characters thus far are not nearly as lovable or “sticky” as the characters of the original trilogy. Meanwhile, many of the characters of the original trilogy are certainly a presence throughout both recent Star Wars releases. In other words, while we talk trash about George, even the new films stand on the shoulders of his giant.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

The Wild Violence of 'The Wild Bunch' Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch tears at the screen with blood and violence. The violence in The Wild Bunch is not only historical but also revolutionary. While the film is one of the most controversial movies of its time, today, its controversy remains a frequently revisited and debated subject among scholars, critics, and movie patrons (Gronstad 167). When The Wild Bunch was first release in 1969, critics and general audiences were incredibly divided (Ferrera). Many critics embraced Peckinpah’s vision and use of violence and blood. Others admonished Peckinpah for his brutality and vivid portrays of on-screen violence. Some may feel as though the violence of The Wild Bunch is antiquated when compared to the portrayals of on-screen violence seen today. However, according to Ferrera, the way Peckinpah uses violence changed how filmmakers portray violence, in particular gun violence, on screen. Unlike previous western films, Peckinpah showed audiences that death and violence are bloody and miserable. Even today, the graphic violence in The Wild Bunch is a subject of controversy and debate. Despite the controversy of the past and present that obsesses on Peckinpah’s use of violence, blood and guns, The Wild Bunch remains of the most celebrated and influential American Westerns of all time.
            Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of The Wild Bunch’s reception is the debate among popular critics around the time of the film’s release. Film audiences had not seen explicit portrayals of violence before Peckinpah’s masterpiece (Ferrera). Bullet holes rip through clothing and human bodies, and blood gushes as the bullets rip through a character’s body. Peckinpah showed the killing of innocent bystanders. The perpetrators of violence use other humans as shields from cascades of bullets. Children giggle as hordes of ants devour a scorpion alive, and later, the children set fire to both the scorpions and ants. The aftermath of gun battle in The Wild Bunch is gruesome and scary. The brightest color in the film is blood. For its time, the violence of The Wild Bunch was unmatched, and many critics and audience members were unsettled and outraged (Canby). Vincent Canby of The New York Times suggests that other critics of the time seemed to have felt as though the film would cause viewers to want to leave the theater and automatically start murdering people. Canby affirms that an impulse to inflict violence on people was not present after watching The Wild Bunch, and the film, “Is very beautiful and the first truly interesting, American-made Western in years.”

            Although many critics felt as though the film was too violent and not suitable for humanity, Charles Champlin and Roger Ebert celebrated the film. Champlin often squinted during the film in a futile attempt to escape the violence. He refers to The Wild Bunch as, “Not so much a movie as a blood bath,” but affirms that the film is, “Brilliantly made and thought provoking.” Champlin notes the original test audiences of The Wild Bunch recoiled in horror and stormed out of the theaters in droves. Apparently, members of test screenings picketed the theaters the next day, and Warner Brothers made Peckinpah cut 35 minutes of violence before officially releasing the film (Champlin). However, Champlin defended the film’s portrayal of violence, and notes that death in The Wild Bunch is depraved and gut wrenching, just as it is in real life. Roger Ebert also celebrated and defended the film’s use of violence with veracity and eloquence. Ebert affirms that the larger cultural issue at hand is that we depict cowboys, Indians, and the Old West as a fun game for children to play.
While Peckinpah did not make a cowboys and Indians film, The Wild Bunch attacks and destroys the notion of the traditional Western. Ebert notes that Peckinpah utilized excessive violence, but this violence merely comes as a reaction and a response to violence enacted throughout the world on a daily basis. This response to violence continues to reverberate through modern-day culture and violence. After seeing The Wild Bunch a second time, Ebert described some of Peckinpah’s use of violence as, “Blood flowing in an unending stream” and “Geysers of blood everywhere.” While Peckinpah’s use of violence is graphic and unlike any other film of its time, interestingly, Ebert’s statements were hyperbole. Nonetheless, Ebert argues that regardless of how graphic and realistic Peckinpah’s on-screen violence may have been, the film exists in a one-dimensional realm, realism is not synonymous with reality, and it is “Impossible to forget this is a movie.”
            In addition to the variety of responses and debate among film critics and audience members at the time of The Wild Bunch’s release, controversy and commentary continues in modern times. Books, scholarly articles, and blogs continue to chronical and add to the discussion of Peckinpah’s portrayal of on-screen violence in The Wild Bunch.  In Cowboy Metaphysics, Peter A. French does not share the same spirit of support for Peckinpah’s portrayals of violence as Roger Ebert. French categorizes Peckinpah’s use of violence as simply an, “Extreme consciousness of death” (84). According to French, the main characters are courageous and heroic, but they are slightly demonic and lack true altruism in their supposedly heroic actions (126). The concept of a person committing to their word as the single attribute necessary to achieve the highest level of moral integrity in The Wild Bunch is particularly unsettling to French. French argues that this brand of integrity utilized in The Wild Bunch causes one to overlook the appalling traits and violence behavior of the film’s characters (128). In other words, if a character is seen as possessing integrity, their awful behavior is justified, and to a certain degree integrity becomes a device that glorifies violent acts regardless of whether the violence is justifiable or not.
            Meanwhile, critical researcher Asbjorn Gronstad highlights and supports many critically justifiable functions of Peckinpah’s use of violence. Gronstad compares Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch to Thoreau’s Walden, not in plot but in meaning and allegory (169). According to Gronstad, morality is not the overarching theme of the film and its violence. Instead, the film is an allegory for the battle between nature and technological progress (Gronstad 170). Observing and drawing conclusions solely from the lens of morality not only negates Peckinpah’s sense of morality, but also ignores a deeper and important thematic dynamic at play in The Wild Bunch. Gronstad frames Peckinpah’s portrayals of violence as both an admonishment of violence and violence toward, “Socio-cultural homogenization” (169). Additionally, Gronstad claims that by re-representing the past, specifically the Old West, in a more appropriate and accurate light, viewers are able to draw a correlation to the present and possible futures of humanity (171). In order to understand the present, and violence situated in the present, we must work to stop glorifying the past. Violence is not a virtue to Peckinpah. Instead, Peckinpah depicts violence as a product of a bleak world in which humanity is always at odds with machine, and in this world, there is no hope for the past, present, or future (Gronstad 184).            While controversy and debate about Peckinpah’s use of violence continues over 40 years after the film’s release, The Wild Bunch remains a, “Seminal work of violence and artistry that forever changed the landscape of motion pictures” (Ferrara). According to Ferrara, Peckinpah was the first to use violence as a slowed-down, graphically choreographed visual motif. The sound of flies buzzing over dead bodies, squibs aggressively flinging blood across the screen, different angles of the same action, and the double and triple printing of film were all innovative techniques Peckinpah utilized to depict on-screen violence (Ferrara). While these techniques are a victory of filmmaking that many filmmakers utilize today, they are also the source of much of The Wild Bunch’s controversy. Prior to The Wild Bunch’s release, the Production Code had not yet been eradicated (Ferrara). According to Ferrara, the Production Code was eventually eradicated and replaced by the MPAA, yet the MPAA strongly objected to the violence and required Peckinpah to remove a scene that graphically displays the cutting of a character’s throat.  Upon test screening the film, after making the necessary cuts, audience members’ reactions were often extremely negative, and Ferrara quotes one early audience member saying, “Don’t release this film. The whole thing is sick.” Despite the controversy and the MPAA’s objections to the depictions of violence in The Wild Bunch, the film received several prestigious awards. In 1999, The Wild Bunch was added to the National Film Registry (Ferrara).            Peckinpah’s own reaction to The Wild Bunch’s release is perhaps one of the most compelling commentaries on the film’s use of violence. Even though there were several audience members that recoiled in horror and condemned the violence in the film, Peckinpah was more appalled by stories of audience members that cheered and attained enjoyment from the film’s violence (Ferrara). Nonetheless, Peckinpah ultimately defended his depictions of violence when condemned by critics, and Peckinpah condemned the idea that he was using on-screen violence as something that is fun and enjoyable (Ferrara). While Peckinpah romanticized the beautiful Mexican landscape in which the film is set, the depictions of violence are brutal, dirty, and devastating. Peckinpah was nicknamed “Bloody Sam” and the final shoot out of The Wild Bunch the “Blood ballet,” yet Peckinpah used violence in the film to speak out against the Vietnam War and violence in general (Ferrara). As Peckinpah himself said, “I wasn't trying to make an epic. I was trying to tell a simple story about bad men in changing times. I was trying to make a few comments on violence, and the people who live by violence.”            Although Peckinpah expressed disappointed that audience members were thrilled and enjoyed the violence, even Roger Ebert admits enjoying Peckinpah’s use of violence. While audiences were divided on whether certain elements of The Wild Bunch are enjoyable or detestable, the film depicts violence, death, and the gun as gruesome and unenjoyable elements of the world. This depiction was Peckinpah’s goal, and the film does not glorify violence but rather condemns violence in the world. If nothing else, Peckinpah managed to produce a violent film that is still a subject of controversy today. Many critiques of The Wild Bunch, such as French’s Cowboy Metaphysics, paint a grim picture of how Peckinpah depicted violence in The Wild Bunch. However, many popular critics and scholars defend Peckinpah’s use and aesthetic of violence. Ultimately, it seems as though the individuals commenting on the violence in The Wild Bunch are more obsessed with violence than the film itself or Peckinpah, because despite the insurmountable amount of commentary on the violence in The Wild Bunch, I could not find a source that mentions the film ending in laughter and song.

Works Cited
Canby, Vincent. “Violence and Beauty Mesh in Wild Bunch” 26 June 1969. New York Times... Web. Mar. 2015. 

Champlin, Charles. “Violence Runs Rampant in The Wild Bunch.Los Angeles Times 15 June,
1969... Web. 1 Mar. 2015.

Ebert, Roger. “The Wild Bunch.” Chicago Sun-Times 3 Aug. 1969., n.d.
Web. 1 Mar 2015.

Ferrara, Greg. The Wild Bunch: Articles. Turner Classic Movies, Turner Sports and
Entertainment Digital Network, n.d. Web. 1 Mar 2015.

French, Peter A. Cowboy Metaphysics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997. Print.

Gronstad, Asbjorn. “Peckinpah’s Walden: The Violent Indictment of ‘Civilization’ in The Wild
Bunch.” Critical Studies 15.1 (2001): 167-186. ASU Library One Search. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.

Peckinpah, Sam, dir. The Wild Bunch. Perf. William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, and Robert Ryan.
Warner Brothers/Seven Arts, 1969. Film.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Boo! A Madea Halloween (2016)! You do your thing Tyler Perry. Don't let these racist douche bags get to you whatsoever. I get that people are quite sensitive to throwing that word "racist" around these days, but I do not care.

I imagine most people that do not like Tyler Perry movies are racists. I might be wrong, but as stated, I do not care. People are more often racist than they think they are, and because they often refuse to admit their racism, they remain racists doing and saying racist shit.

I love Tyler Perry movies.

I often feel as though his films are more for the ladies or Christians than black folk, but therein lies another charm of Tyler Perry: His movies are overtly super Christian, but I do not mind. Under any other circumstances, I would not continue a movie, let alone watch almost all of the guy's movies.

In fact, I think I have seen all of Tyler Perry's movies. I have not seen the animated one nor all of his stage productions on DVD. However, yes, I have seen all of his feature films, except For Colored Girls. I bought the BluRay several years ago for my wife. She was going to wait to watch it with a friend. But they never got around to watching it, so I never got around to watching it. Funny, the only feature film of Tyler Perry's that I have not seen my household owns.! A Madea Halloween is funny as hell. The comedy is a bit slow to start, but during the second act the film becomes laugh-out-loud funny. Meanwhile, it would not be a Tyler Perry movie if somewhere in the film there was not some level of intense drama. This of course happens at the end of the second act, and as usual, I appreciate the intense somewhat soap-opera drama.Tyler Perry is an outright contradiction to my general tastes.! A Madea Halloween is simply a fun Halloween ride with one of America's best characters. Madea is not simply a character for black people; she is an American treasure. I read her book years ago, and it's pretty damn funny. To this day, I always clean my bedroom last and make sure any guest areas are immaculate. That's right, Madea is not only an American treasure but also a life coach.

For the record, the animated Madea movie Madea's Tough Love is not "a Tyler Perry film." Tyler voices Madea in the movie, but others wrote and directed it. Also, Boo! A Madea Halloween has a 21% critics aggregate on Rotten Tomatoes. Fuck the critics! They are no fun.

Friday, October 14, 2016

The Girl on the Train (2016) piece contains spoilers. They are not necessarily blatant spoilers. However, because this “review” is not really a review but rather a piece of pro-feminist propaganda, the brief analysis “spoils” the plot and mystery of the film. If you have not seen Girl on the Train, we cannot recommend reading this analysis.

Despite mostly poor reviews, I thoroughly enjoyed Girl on the Train. The acting is phenomenal, and the story is refreshingly unexpected. Maybe “refreshingly” is not a very useful adverb. Instead, let’s say the film is intense and unexpected. have heard that the film adaptation is not nearly as good as the book, but people always say that don’t they?

I always say that I am a sucker for plot twists of a well-made film. My friends walk out of a film claiming that they knew that was going to happen, seemingly as soon as the FADE IN. However, I often remain ignorant and naïve until the big reveal. Girl on the Train is no exception to my naïve ignorance of plot twists. This is not to say that I cannot write a plot twist, but rather when engaged as an audience member, I am a pushover. the end of the second act, I thought that I had the movie figured out and knew exactly how the film would conclude. Boy was this ignorant pushover classically wrong. Once again, I fell for all of the misdirection that appeared as though it was clues and breadcrumbs. It really is a bit of subtle cinematic magic for a gullible audience member like me.

Even the title of the film is deceptive. The film is not about a girl. The film is about women and the varying degrees of illusion and torment they face within a sociopathic patriarchal society. At the end of the film, the main character Rachel states that she is not the girl she used to be.

However, the reality of the matter is that she was never the “girl she used to be,” simply embodying a role constructed by a domineering womanizing psycho.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Fernando di Leo: Il maestro del cinema nero

Fernando Di Leo è stato un sceneggiatore e un regista italiano. Come un regista, Di Leo ha girato venti film, e ha scritto più di quaranta sceneggiature (Rea). Il lavaro di Fernando Di Leo è influente, discusso e molto divertente. Di Leo ha influenzato un po’ dei più rispettati registi di oggi come Quentin Tarantino e John Woo (Coacci). Nonostante la sua influenza, i suoi film e la sua influenza dei film di oggi sono quasi dimenticati e considerati non sono nelle grazie ai pubblici film.  Tuttavia, i suoi film rimangono entrambi testimonianze sociali della cultura italiana importanti del passato e del presente, e i suoi film sono i fondazioni di molti film gialli criminali.
Questi film e il suo lavaro sono spesso classificati in maniera impropria come film poliziotteschi, ma Di Leo ha girato solo uno film che sarebbe considerato un poliziottesco, Il poliziotto è marcio Gordiano Lupi ha scritto nel suo libro Frenando Di Leo: E il suo cinema nero e perverso, “Di Leo non usa i meccanismi e gli stereotipi del poliziesco, non fa mai cinema consolatorio, evita di creare personaggi – caricatura e di cadere nei cliché del genere. Gira film noir e sono cosa ben diversa dal poliziesco” (Lupi 42). In realtà, i film di Fernando Di Leo sono film neri (o i film noir italiani) spesso ispiravano dal lavaro ed i gialli di Giorgio Scerbanenco. Mentre questi film ispiravano da Giorgio Sceranenco, Di Leo è considerato uno dei inventori dei film criminali italiani. Inoltre, Di Leo è anche considerato uno dei inventoru dei film western all’italiana (o spaghetti western,) e ha scritto le sceneggiature con Sergio Leone come, Per un pugno di dollari e Per qualche dollaro in più (Gomarasca). Molti film di Fernando Di Leo sono molti violenti e spinti, ma anche hanno i temi socioeconomici importanti. Anche se i film di Fernando Di Leo apparentemente si sono dimenticato e si sono ignorati dalla cultura di massa, i suoi film e il suo lavaro in generale sono un po’ dei più importante film della storia film, e Di Leo ha cambiato il modo in cui i film sono girato ed i tipi dei film che concedevano proiettare nel’Italia.

Una biografia di un sceneggiatore
Fernado Di Leo è nato nel 22 gennario 1932 a San Ferdinando di Puglia, ed è morto nel dicember 2003. Suo nono e suo padre sono stati gli avvacati, ed all’inizio della sua vita adulta Fernando si è iscritto a una facoltà di giurisprudenza (Coacci). Anche se glielo ha laureato, questo via ha finito velcomente dopo Fernando Di Leo ha vinto la “Coppa Murano” per il teatro sperimantale Lume del tuo corpo e l'occhio dalla “Aguna di Venezia,” una cerimonia di premiazione per il teatro (Poppi). Ma sembra che la “Aguna di Venezia”  non sia più in uso. Dopo ha vinto la “Coppa Murano,” Di Leo si è trasferito a Roma, ed è andato al Centro Sperimentale di Cinematografia, dove ha laureato nel 1963. Il suo primo film ha diretto era un cortometraggio (“Un posto in paradiso”) per il film Gli eroi di ieri, oggi e domani, un film a episodi (Anicaflash).
Nonostante il suo inizio nella cinematografia era come un regista, il sua carreria successa ha iniziato grazie alle sue sceneggiature. Sopratutto queste prime sceneggiature sono state film western. Con queste sceneggiature, Fernando Di Leo ed altri registi e sceneggiatori stimati, come Sergio Leone e Víctor Andrés Catena, hanno inventato il western all’italiana, più spesso conosciuto come “il spaghetti western” (Coacci). Durante gli anni 1960, il spaghetti western furano molto successo, e Di Leo scrisse o fu coinvolto nel molti dei film più famosi come Per un pugno di dollari, Una pistola per Ringo, Per qualche dollaro in più, Navajo Joe e molti altri. Gli spaghetti western film e i loro cineasti hanno ispirato altri cineasti, e questo fenomeno è risulato nella produzione di centinaia di altri film. Due dei spaghetti western più famosi che Fernando Di Leo ha scritto con altri sceneggiatori sono Per un pugno di dollari e Per qualche dollaro in più, comunque Di Leo non ha attribuito per il suo lavaro perché delle sue politiche di sinistra (Gomarasca). Tuttavia, le sue politiche di sinistra e il suo punto di vista diventano i fondazioni tematici dei suoi capolavori.

L’inizia di un regista
Prima di Di Leo ha iniziato girare i suoi film neri, ha scritto e ha diretto il film di guerra Rose rosse per il fuhrer nel 1967. Questo film era il suo primo lungometraggio e il film usa molti di temi sinistri che risuonano in quasi tutto del suo lavaro, ma questo tipo film non è stato il suo forte e non è stato il suo genere di preferenza (Lupi). Sembra che Di Leo non abbia travato mai una genere di preferenza come un regista o come un scenggiatore. Invece, sembra che Di Leo semplicemente abbia avuto una preferenza per i film e i soggetti hanno radicato nelle controversie. Molti dei suoi film sono molto discusso, un po’ di sono affrontano i soggetti sensibili come la identità sessuale delle donne giovani e molti dei suoi film sono molto molto violenti.
Di Leo non era mai paura girare il tipo dei film che ha voluto girare. I temi e i soggetti dei suoi film eranno molto discusso, ma i temi socali eranno molto importante negli anni sessanta e negli anni settanta. Per espempio, nel suo film Avere vent’anni, i progtagonisti sono una coppia lesbica. Al tempo il film ha lanciato, il soggetto di una coppia lesbica ha considerato non solo bizarro, ma anche e sopratutto molto offensivo parlare di questi tipi dei soggetti (Gomarasca). Però, per Fernando Di Leo e molti dei suoi film, sembra che la indentità della giovinezza e il paesaggio culturale fosse spesso del più importenza. Intanto, il soggetto della omosessualità nel film Avere vent’anni era un realità in Italia e nel mondo, e Di Leo ha hetto che il film era solo una riflessione del mondo vedeva. I suoi film non eranno per giochi e divertimento. No, invence, ha pensato che il  tema di un film deva essere qualcosa che fa pensare e cambia il paesaggio culturale e il narrativo culturale degli italiani. Avere vent’anni ha un forte tema, ma il film fornisce una voce agli afoni del tempo e oggi.

I gialli di Giorgio Scerbanenco
Seguente gli spaghetti western, Rose rosse per il fuhrer e atri lavori minori dei film, Di Leo ha trovato i libri di Giorgio Scerbanenco, un scrittore dei romanzi criminali, conosciuto come i gailli (Gomarasca). Di Leo ha usato molti di questi libri come il soggetto principale dei suoi film o come le inspirazioni per i suoi personaggi e altri elementi dei suoi film. I critici hanno considerato Scerbanenco solo un scrittore dei romanzi “pulp,” ma per Fernando Di Leo questi libri hanno fornito un tipo di atmosfera e un narrativo culturale che ha voluto rappresentare nei suoi film (Lupi 65). Senza i libri di Giorgio Scerbanenco, Di Leo forse non avrebbe girato un po’ dei suoi migliori film. Il suo primo film bassato su un romanzo di Scernaneco dello stesso nome, è I ragazzi del massacro, ma questo film è stato solo l’esordio della sua carriera di film nero.  Fernando Di Leo è spesso chiama un inventore del noir all’italiana, Scerbanenco ha influenzato molti altri registi italiani negli anni settanta, come Carlos Saura, Romolo Guerrieri, Duccio Tessari, Yves Boisset, e più (Lupi). Se Fernando Di Leo era il inventore del film nero italiano, era Scerbanenco che ha inventato i film gialli e i film poliziotteschi, senza ha girato mai un film. “Scernanenco è il vero punto di riferimento per la narrativa gialla e poliziesca italiana” (Lupi 65). Nello stesso momento, Scernanenco ha inspirato Fernando Di Leo fare il suo cinema nero, allora deva essere il vero punto di riferimento per la nera italiana. Dopo I ragazzi del massacro, Fernando Di Leo ha girato il film orrore La bestia uccide a sangue freddo con l’attore famoso nel mondo Klaus Kinski, ma Di Leo velocemente ha tornato al lavoro di Giogrio Scerbanenco per il suo film incredibile Milano Calibro 9.

Milano Calibro 9
Di Leo ha scritto e ha diretto il film Milano Calibro 9 nel 1972, e lo è il suo capolavoro. Milano Calibro 9 è non solo il suo capolavoro, ma anche il film che definisce Di Leo come un regista, come un sceneggiatore e come un attivista sociale. Il film mostra il suo stile violento e molti di suoi temi controversi. Prima di questo film i pubblici non hanno esposto al’idea che c’era una criminalità organizzata in una città come Milano, ma alla fine questa rivelazione era conosciuto come una realtà (Gomarasca). Milano Calibro 9 è il perfetto film nero. La colonna sonora è del compositore famoso e prolifico Luis Enriquez Bacalov, e gli interpreti sono Barbara Bouchet, Mario Adorf, Luigi Pistilli e il protagonista principale Gastone Moschin. Prima di Milano Calibro 9 Gastone Moschin era solo un attore della commedia all’italiana, ma questo fatto non è mai evidente nel film.
Gastone Moschin interpreta il personaggio di Ugo Piazza, un ex detenuto. Il suo capo del passato Rocco (interpreta da Mario Adorf) pensa che Ugo abbia rubato trecentomila dollari dalla sua organizzazione criminale. Rocco è pazzo e gli piace torturare le genti. Rocco e la polizia credono che Ugo abbia nascosto i soldi. Ovunque il film molti personaggi innocenti uccidono, e Ugo è uno di questi personaggi. Il film usa un narrativo unico, non c’è una fine felice. Di Leo ha voluto girare un film realistico. Ha voluto mostrare una immagina vera della mala e criminalità organizzata a Milano.

La trilogia della mala
            Di seguito al successo di Milano Calibro 9, Fernando Di Leo ha continuato raffinare il suo stile del film nero. In aggiunta, Di Leo ha continuato usare il lavoro di Giorgio Scerbanenco come uno delle sue ispirazioni per i suoi prossimi film. Il due film che hanno lanciato dopo Milano Calibro 9, sono  La mala ordina e Il boss. Questi due film sono anche buoni esempi del tipo di nero che Di Leo ha girato. Di Leo ha continuato usuare un stile ultravioletto e un narrativo non trattenuto per questi film. Inoltre la realtà, in un senso cinematografico, della mafia milanese e altri paesi inaspettato continua nei film La mala ordina e Il boss. Insieme, questi film Milano Calibro 9, La mala ordina e Il boss sono conosciuto come “La trilogia della mala” o “La trilogia del milieu.” La atmosfera di La mala ordina e Il boss è lo stesso come Milano Calibro 9, ma questi film non sono i continuazioni di Milano Calibro 9. Mentre sono chiamare una trilogia, non ci sono una trilogia nel tipico senso di una trilogia. Invence di sono in relazione con la trauma di Milano Calibro 9, sono in relazione con il stile, lo spirito e il soggetto di Milano Calibro 9. “I personaggi sono ambigui, complessi, mai totalmente buoni e cattivi, realistici, pieni di sfaccettature caratteriali. Di Leo preferisce finali tragici sconvolgenti al lieto fine, perché non ama tutto quello che nel cinema sa di contraffatto e di poco affine alla realtà che ci circonda” (Lupi 42).
            Tutti di questi film di “La triolgia della mala” sono stati molto successo in Italia e in molti paesi ovvunque il mondo. Negli anni settanta il tipo dei film che Fernando Di Leo ha girato, non hanno avuto plauso dalla critica, invece era gli spettatori che hanno voluto andare al cinema per un altro nero di Feranndo Di Leo. Non hanno vinto i premi, e Fernando Di Leo non è stato mai un nome familiare ovunque il mondo. Peró i suoi film hanno fornito molti altri registi, molti altri film e molti altri cineasti una via per facendo il tipo di film che vogliono fare. Dopo l’inzia degli anni ottanta. I film neri sono caduti fuori la favore del pubblico. Di Leo ha continuato girare i film, ma questi film non sono come influente, unico o interesante come Milano Calibro 9 o gli altri film della “Trilogia della mala.” A un certo punto, gli spettatori hanno dimenticato Fernando Di Leo e un po dei suoi migliori film.

Quentin Tarantino ricorda Di Leo
Nonostante gli spettatori in massa che hanno dimenticato Fernando Di Leo, c’è uno uomo che ha rifiutato dimenticare Fernando Di Leo e i suoi film. Questo uomo era il regista americano Quentin Tarantino. Dopo Di Leo è morto nel 2003, Tarantino ha scritto una dedica a Fernando Di Leo per il RaroVideo confezione cofanetto di DVD,  reimmissione nei circuiti di distribuzione dei film di Di Leo. La popularità per Fernando Di Leo salta un’altra volta. Però questa volta gli spettatori non vanno al cinema guardare i suoi film, invence Fernando Di Leo era un grande successo sul video. Purtroppo, questo successo era dopo Fernando Di Leo è morto. Tarantino spesso dice che Milano Calibro 9 è il fil in cui si è ispirato diventare un regista. Oggi, una citazione di Tarantino è sulla copertura del DVD di Milano Calibro 9, e sembra che una persona non possa parlare di Ferando Di Leo senza il soggetto di Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino ha detto che ha imparato come fare i suoi film da guardare i film di Fernando Di Leo. Inoltre, Quentin Tarantino ha derivato molte idee e un po’ dei personaggi per il suo film Pulp Fiction dal film di Fernando Di Leo, La mala ordina (Lozzi). Tarantino è forse il quasi solo ragione sappiamo Fernando Di Leo ed i suoi film nel’era moderna. Comunque, Fernando Di Leo ed i suoi film sono lavori importanti che hanno fondato un nuovo genere di cinema all’italiana.

Il poliziotto è marcio
Un altro film importante di Ferando Di Leo è Il poliziotto è marcio. Questo film è importante non solo perché il suo forte tema e titolo, ma anche perché lo ha influenzato le possibilità dei soggetti sensibili nel pubblico e come altri registi girano i loro film. Il protagonista di Il poliziotto è marcio è Malacarne, un poliziotto Milano con le sue mani della mafia. Questo soggetto era una grande controversia. Parlare del poliziotto come “marcio” ha pensato essere tanto offensivo. Dopo Il poliziotto è marcio, Fernando Di Leo era condannato del governo e il pubblico per un breve tempo. Peró, come i migliori film Di Leo ha fatto, questo film è solo una descrizione. “La realtà ci insegna che la storia del crimine è piena di poliziotti marci” (Lupi 31).

Conclusione            La carriera di Fernando Di Leo è molto interessante. Ha girato molti film di molti generi diversi. Il suo lavoro ha influezato il cinema e i registi di oggi. Il stile e i temi dei suoi film sono forti, molto controversi e molto importanti. Però Fernando Di Leo non ha voluto fare male al mondo, invence ha voluto intrattenere gli spettatori mentre anche provocare un cambiamento del mondo di cinema e il mondo in generale. Giorgio Sceranenco ha inspirato Fernando Di Leo, Fernando Di Leo ha inspirato Quentin Tarantino e Tarantino inspira i registi di domani. I loro lavori sono molto discusso, non sono per tutto, ma Fernando Di Leo non è dimenticato. Lui solo continua scrivere senza un nome, come l’inizia della sua carriera.
Coacci, Simone. “Fernando Di Leo: Il rosso e il nero.” OndaCinema. OndaCinem, n.d. Web. 3
marzo 2016.
“Fernando Di Leo biografia.” Anicaflash, n.d. Web. 3 marzo 2016.
Gomarasca, Manlio. Fernando Di Leo: La morale del genre. Perf. Fernando Di Leo, Nino
Castelnuovo, and Howard Ross. RaroVideo, 2004. DVD.
Lozzi, Luigi. Anarchio del noir... Tricolore! All That Digital, 2 giugno 2014. Web. 3 marzo
Lupi, Gordiano. Fernando Di Leo e il suo cinema nero e perverso. Roma: Profondo Rosso, 2009.
Poppi, Roberto. I registi: dal 1930 ai giorni nostri. Roma: Gremese Editore, 2002. Print.
Rea, Luca. A Candid Interview with Fernando Di Leo on the Making of his Films. Minneapolis:
RaroVideo, 2004. Print.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

For the Love of Film Pt. III

We often view film as a mere form of entertainment. It is true that for many moviegoers and home-movie audiences, films are simply a fleeting weekend retreat.

An individual watches a film, and the film is either entertaining or not. An audience member laughs or cries and loves or hates a film.

Each audience member’s experience is a subjective, unique experience influenced by the individual’s culture, life experiences, and standpoints. A film that one audience member considers a masterpiece may be considered artistically worthless to another audience member.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

The Easy Life/Il sorpasso (1962)

A Passing Warning Sorpasso (The Easy Life) is a ferociously entertaining film that is both masterful and thought provoking. Directed by Dino Risi, Il Sorpasso stars Vittorio Gassman as Bruno and Jean-Louis Trintignant as Roberto. Nick Vivarelli of Variety referred to Risi as, “An undisputed master of Italy’s postwar commedia all’italiana.” Il Sorpasso demonstrates this sentiment beautifully. On the surface, Il Sorpasso is a comedy about a road trip shared by two entirely different strangers. Meanwhile, the film is also deeply tragic, and it provides a reflection of cultures past and present. Bruno is the driving force of the film from the beginning to the end. He is wild and unrestrained. Responsibilities are the furthest issues from Bruno’s mind. Instead, Bruno lives in every moment with excitement and wanton disregard for consequences. He charges through life and the Italian landscape in a peppy little convertible with reckless abandon. However, Bruno’s actions and carelessness eventually result in the tragic death of Roberto.
While Bruno represents a man attempting to transcend his age and a special brand of overcharged masculinity, Roberto is different. Roberto is quiet and reserved. He is ordinary and represents the traditional values of Italian men and families (Candela). From the onset of the film, Bruno makes Roberto nervous, and he is uncertain of Bruno’s intentions. Although Roberto is uncomfortable in the beginning, he eventually begins to relax and gives into Bruno’s influence. The juxtaposition between Bruno’s fun-loving personality and Roberto’s sheltered nature provides an organic humor. The film is a highly entertaining comedy, yet it is also a cautionary tale about economic prosperity and a man that lives without prudence (Powers). While Il Sorpasso is a depiction of Italy in the 1960s, the film’s humor and themes transcend geographical borders and time. of the most essential ingredients of Il Sorpasso is Vittorio Gassman’s performance. Gassman is brilliant as Bruno. Bruno not only convinces Roberto to ride in his car, but also yanks the audience into the passenger seat. Although we are also uncertain of Bruno’s motives and question his level of self-control, we cannot help but join him on his journey. While Bruno provides a representation of problematic masculinity manifested onscreen as a lunatic in a convertible, he is also fun, exciting, and infectiously charming. We see through Roberto that Bruno is not only a potentially dangerous man, but also a lovable boy trapped in a man’s body. When necessary, Gassman seamlessly flows in and out of moments of hysterical comedy and the layers of turmoil that reside within Bruno. Bruno is over the top and out of control, but Gassman’s performance in Il Sorpasso is nuanced and refined. 
The nuances and refinement found in Gassman’s performance harmoniously echo Dino Risi’s directing. Risi’s emphasis on detail is striking. Every frame of the film seems to come alive with subtly and superior composition. Bruno is wild and energetic, but Roberto is calm and restrained. Risi’s directing style demonstrates the same type of relationship. Risi balances each of these forces with control and elegance. Risi can be loud and over the top, yet much like Roberto, he remains in the background in quiet contemplation when necessary. The framing of the characters and the landscape of the film are accomplished with precision. Everyone and everything in the camera’s lens is carefully constructed, and Risi gives purpose to both the central characters and the extras. Risi’s extras are almost just as important as the central characters of the film. By drawing our attention to these branches of reality and alternate modes of existence, Risi adds a depth that assists in bringing the film alive. These details not only provide the audience a greater sense of the world that surrounds Bruno and Roberto, but also a unique perspective of Italy during the postwar economic boom (Lopate).
From the moment the film opens, Risi captivates the audience with visually striking landscapes. A lively jazz soundtrack blares through the psyche. Although the streets of Italy are mostly empty, Bruno and his convertible fill the landscape with energy and excitement. The tone of the film is carefully set. When Bruno stops the car outside Roberto’s home in the beginning of the film, the audience becomes a passenger before Bruno and Roberto meet. Bruno and Roberto are strangers, but Bruno’s overbearing and outgoing personality instantly engulf Roberto’s existence. Upon meeting one another, Bruno asks Roberto to call a woman that is waiting for Bruno. Instead of calling the woman for Bruno, Roberto invites Bruno to use his phone. Roberto is timid and reclusive. He wants to be alone to study, but Bruno quickly convinces Roberto to take a drive in the convertible. Bruno’s driving is erratic and dangerous. He roars through the Italian landscape, furiously honking his horn, and teasing everyone that he passes. While Bruno mocks everyone that he passes, Risi mocks Bruno’s machismo and masculinity throughout the entire film. Despite the comedy that Risi uses to poke fun at his characters and Italy, a deep affection for the characters and country is apparent in Risi’s work.
As Bruno and Roberto drive from town to town, Bruno is never in short supply of sarcasm and practical jokes. He plays jokes on Roberto, the people he meets, and other cars on the road. At first, Bruno’s behavior and bravado make Roberto uneasy, and he questions whether he should continue to engage in the car ride with Bruno., eventually Roberto warms up to Bruno, and it is apparent that Roberto admires Bruno. Bruno’s overbearing personality lures Roberto into Bruno’s way of life. Bruno charges through the world with the carefree nature of a child. While Bruno is uninhibited around women, Roberto is shy and nervous around them. However, as he begins to loosen up and enjoy the ride in Bruno’s convertible, Roberto starts to enjoy the simple pleasures of life with Bruno.
Until the end of the film, Bruno seems without consequence, and he often slips away from danger and authority unscathed. Bruno seems unstoppable until a car crash on the side of the road prompts him to pull over. A dead body lies on the side of the road. Instead of taking the serious nature of the car crash to heart, Bruno remains sarcastic, opportunist, and flippant. He attempts to capitalize on the situation by soliciting a crying truck driver for the merchandise damaged in the crash. However, a police officer quickly interrupts Bruno by honking the convertible’s ridiculous car horn. The police officer writes Bruno a ticket for his reckless driving. Despite the officer’s citation and the foreshadowing implored by a dead body on the side of the road, Bruno remains obnoxious. Bruno begins mocking the police officer, but he is quickly back on the road racing through life more carefree than ever.
Throughout the film, it often seems as though there is no stopping or slowing down Bruno. His vibrant energy never falters.  Until we learn the Bruno has a wife and daughter, it seems that Bruno has led an entirely laid-back and untroubled life. However, as Bruno’s estranged wife Gianna reveals to Roberto, Bruno has struggled to find his place in the world. Underneath the seemingly happy-go-lucky and brash exterior of Bruno, resides a lonely boy that never matured. In fact, Bruno’s teenage daughter Lilly is more mature and self-controlled than Bruno. Once Lilly and Gianna are introduced, it is clear that the lifestyle Bruno leads and the unfaltering masculinity that he clings to have already resulted in negative consequences. It is obvious that Bruno has been absent for the majority of Lilly’s life. Meanwhile, it is apparent that Lilly loves and cares for Bruno, but Lilly generally uses Bruno’s first name when talking to him. She sees Bruno as more of a friend than she does a father figure. the middle of the night, Bruno and Roberto arrive at Gianna’s house drunk. Shortly after their arrival, Lilly’s boyfriend Bibi escorts her home. Bibi is significantly older than Bruno, and Bibi’s age upsets Bruno. However, Roberto offsets Bruno’s frustration by drunkenly laughing at the situation. The presence of Bibi, and Lilly’s plans to move to America with Bibi, mark the point in which Bruno finally begins to question and evaluate the choices that he has made in life. Lilly’s relationship with Bibi is an obvious representation of a young girl seeking out the male role model and fatherly structure that Bruno neglected to provide Lilly in her formative years. Meanwhile, Lilly’s relationship with Bibi is not a manifestation of malice or passive aggressive vengeance. Bruno regrets not being a better father to Lilly and a more responsible person in general. However, when Bruno confides in Lilly, Lilly tells Bruno that he should never change. She cannot help but love Bruno and his vivacious attitude toward life.
Nonetheless, Bruno’s unfaltering reckless behavior ultimately causes Roberto’s death. After a brief respite at the beach, Bruno and Roberto decide to end their road trip. Bruno is just as careless and fearless as even while driving home. Despite Roberto’s fear and uncertainty of Bruno’s reckless driving in the beginning of the film, in the end, he relishes in the excitement of speeding through the Italian landscape. Now, both Bruno and Roberto are screaming and wailing down the highway like two teenagers on a joyride. As Bruno attempts another il sorpasso (the suiting title and Italian term for aggressively passing another vehicle,) he drives the convertible into oncoming traffic, and a semi-truck drives straight at the convertible (Lopate). Bruno swerves the car away from a semi-truck. He loses control of the car. The car smashes into a cement barricade. The impact of the crash throws Bruno from the car as it tumbles down a cliff. Roberto remains in the passenger seat as the car falls, and he plunges to his death.
While Il Sorpasso is a highly entertaining comedy, it is also a deeply tragic film. It is not only a social critique about Italian males and the economic boom of postwar Italy, but also a warning (Powers). Despite the excitement inherent in Bruno’s vibrant and arrogant personality, his carefree lifestyle results in detrimental consequences. Bruno embraced a frivolous and superficial lifestyle, and he can only blame himself for missing his child’s life and the death of Roberto. Additionally, the film serves as a reflection of a culture and a society that Risi saw as speeding recklessly out of control trying to breeze by anyone or anything it passes (Lopate). The film warns that life can be thrilling and fun. However, when we stop paying attention to that which we care about and lose sight of ourselves, tragedy waits down the road.