Once Upon A Time In The West...Not your typical western!

"Once Upon the Time in the West," which opened yesterday at Loew's State 2 and at Loew's Orpheum, is the biggest, longest, most expensive Leone Western to date, and, in many ways, the most absurd." - The New York Times

This movie challenges the dominant idealogy for most Americans from that time because the inhumane killer in this movie is a white man, whereas, viewers were used to seeing Native Americans as inhumane and cruel, cold blooded killers. The roles in this movie play against the stereotypes that everyone at that time is used to. Another interesting spin is that Henry Fonda was the villain. He was known back then as the guy who always plays the hero, gentleman and righteous man.

Another thing that was dramatically different for me (and I'm sure for the viewers back then too) was that the villain actually got to sleep with the girl (I think her name was Jill). She wanted him (and I'm still confused because he was the one who killed her husband). Whereas, what I'm used to is that the good guy gets the girl. And even in the end, he still left her there without even as much as a hand shake. Why??? Fall in love and live happily ever after! Although she wasn't your typical "damsel in distress" I think Jill's role in this movie was wonderful. She showed a different side of women that most movies don't portay; the real side.

This film was long but really good. It had amazing close up shots, the sound effects and music was great and definitely added to the mood of the scene. For example, when the fly was on the guys mouth all I could hear was that annoying sound that the fly makes and I thought to myself "Just kill the stupid thing already". The music and sound effects got the viewer to feel like they were experiencing the same that and made it that much more relateable. The scenery was also beautiful as like any other western movie.

I enjoyed this movie because it masterfully challenged the typical western, as well as, the normal types of roles these actors played. You never knew what was coming next so it mastered the element of surprise and above all, it was action packed, as well as, humerous. And with these compliments coming from someone who doesn't like westerns, this is a definitely under the "must watch" list!

So...where the heck is Debbie??? "The Searchers"

Now I don't know much about western movies, this was my first one. For most of this movie I was trying to figure out what in the world was going on. Why they hated the Indians, and why the Indians even attacked their home in the first place. This movie to me showed some racism and was very old fashioned, for example, women mainly spoke once the man spoke to them and also, males were the hunters and fighter while women kept the house.

The Searchers, by John Ford, is considered to be a true American classic of Western film making. I agree that the Searchers is a hate-ridden quest of crusaders obsessed with revenge and hatred. Indians are portrayed negatively as blood thirsty animals in this. Despite the violence, there was beautiful scenery that made it realistic. The establishing shots on Monument Valley gave the viewer a really good glance at where they were and allowed us to experience it as if we were really there.

John Wayne plays a typical cowboy from what I've seen and understand about western movies. He's tough, rugged, and a pro at handling a gun. He's always moving, never settling in one place, which could explain why he doesn't have a family of his own. He becomes a hero on his relentless search to find his niece and even then he doesn't stay and settle down with the family. I think this is a way of portraying that he is a loner and does not conform to society's beliefs that everyone should settle down and take care of a family. It shows him as an individual and the camera angle shows us (the viewers) as the normal ones looking out from the inside. Even in the end he is still searching. For what? I guess we'll never know.

Although I'm not a fan of western movies this movie was somewhat enjoyable. It had its humerous parts (Martin by the fire) as well as, the down time in the movie (i.e. when the family was slaughtered). The only thing I didn't really like about the movie was that it portrayed Indians as evil and was slightly racist. They also could've made it a little interesting when they saved Debbie if Martin had fought Scar to save her. That could've built a lot of suspense. I felt like the women were very dramatic and the men were just rough. My favorite part about the movie was the beautiful scenes of the valley. Overall, it was a pretty good movie and if you enjoy westerns you'll most likely enjoy this one.

The Panama Deception

The Panama Deception is a documentary that investigates the case of the 1989 US invasion into Panama. The US was not motivated by the need to protect American soldiers, capture Noriega or restore democracy. It was to force Panama to be under the control of the US. I feel as though the director, Barbara Trent, wanted us to feel exactly what the people were feeling; anger and extreme sadness. Thus, I felt like she tried to push her views onto us. Throughout this movie I felt as though America was the enemy and tricked Panama into letting them in just to gain control, like it was all they wanted. Trent used testimonies of victims, actual footage, as well as, new reports and pictures to show us exactly what happened.

The voice of the narrator also created a sense of authenticity/credibility because it sounded as though the person was confident, stern and firmly believed what they were saying. It goes back into history showing how the US first got into Panama dealing with the Panama Canal and how they infiltrated the Panamanian government using scandals to get Noriega in. Trent portrays the US as this monster that grows angry because they are not getting their way. America is the villain. They use actual footage of Bush's speeches, as well as, footage of the war.

Overall Trent was very convincing in the documentary by trying to show America as the enemy. At the end of the movie I felt really disgusted with the country and also felt as though things could've been handled differently. I felt as though they were lying to the people (I guess hence the deception in the title of the documentary) and Trent evoked those emotions very well.

The New York Times review; The Panama Deception states that the documentary is full of witnesses, for example, official spokesmen, ordinary folk and politicians and I agree with them with they say that this give it a hometown point of view. Trents photos and excerpts on interviews clearly show which side of the argument she is on as this is a one sided documentary. She obviously believes that the invasion was a mistake and the the US was taking advantage of the trust of the people.

Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane was made in 1941. It follows the life of Charlie Foster Kane as a group of reporters try to figure out the last word ever spoke by Charles Foster Kane: "Rosebud". The film begins with a news report of Kane's life and death, as well as, flashbacks from his life.

The movie begins with a choker (close up) shot of a news article announcing Kane's death and also shows a few flashback moment of his life. There is a choker shot of Kane's mouth saying "Rosebud" as he is dying and then focuses on his hand and the snow globe as it drops. As the reporter begins his investigation there also is another choker shot of Kane's house of a "No Trespassing" sign. In this scene there was also extra-diegetic music as they showed different angles of Kane's house. The music gave an eerie feeling to the film at first. The director also used match editing in this scene as the window was in he same place in every angle of the house.

There are also a lot of deep focus shot in this movie. For example in the house when Kane was a boy, his parents are talking in the foreground while we can clearly view him playing outside in the snow in the background. Open frame shots we also used in this scene to make the viewer feel as if they were in the home too.

Throughout the movie there were different camera shots such as medium-two shots, tracking shots, point-of-view shots, medium shots and long shots. There were also many lighting techniques such as key lights, rim lights, and back lights. For example of a fill light, the lighting was placed solely on the book when the reporter was looking for a Rosebud reference.

This film review that I read was called Citizen Kane (1941) and it described the movie as a fresh, sophisticated, and classic masterpiece. I agree with how this review compared the camera techniques to that of Hitchcock with the long shots and deep focus shots. Overall I think the movie was pretty good but it really took too long to answer the question of who/what was Rosebud. But I'd definitely watch it again.