When Harry Met Sally

In spite of, or perhaps even because of, “When Harry met Sally” follows a lot of the romantic comedy clichés that are present in most romantic comedy films that are made in these days. Some of the examples of the clichés that are present are the cynical friends of both Harry and Sally, who end up getting married themselves, as well as taking place in New York City, which the movie brings attention to at one point when Harry says that “I live in New York City. There are eight million people living in this city, why shouldn’t I run into my ex at one point.” Finally, it contains, or perhaps created, the cliché of the final sprint, when Harry is running desperately towards the New Years Eve party and Harry has finally realized that he loves Sally and wants to be with her, a cliché that is still present in romantic comedies even in this day and age. As for whether “When Harry met Sally” is actually a good movie when compared to romantic comedies from this time, I would say that it was much better than most current romantic comedies because, while many parts of “When Harry met Sally” is very clichéd, it also contains a lot of originality and shows it with interesting characters and real drama that is lost on most romantic comedies that are more contemporary that rely more on ungrounded, unnecessary, and unrealistic “hilarity” to provide comedy. I believe that “When Harry met Sally” has more than withstood the test of time, and has actually become an ever greater film.

Sherman's March

The only thing that I can think of that would be the reason that people want to see a Sherman’s March, a film about Ross McElwee rather than Sherman’s March, is that they are drawn to the absurdity of it. By its absurdity I do not mean that the film itself is absurd, but rather that in the author’s own guilt of filming events of his own life, and then trying to tie them into events that occurred during General William Sherman’s March to the Sea which was what he was meant to be documenting. I do not mean to attack it by pointing out its absurdity, but rather show the film for how strange and bizarre it is. It could be argued that almost anyone could make a personal documentary about their personal insights and exploits and philosophy. However, along with that it must be said that most would fund such a documentary to be a huge waste of time, as most are not interested in the thoughts and adventures of others. Some people however have lives that most audiences would appreciate watching, and thusly it would be fine to watch a documentary based on their adventures and thoughts, because, isn’t a feature film very much the same, as it follows a protagonist on their adventures and follows their thoughts on what is happening on their adventure. In the end, it all boils down to how interesting the audience will find the subject’s life, and his thoughts on it.

Exit Through the Gift Shop

The film, “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is a rather difficult documentary to assess. Both because of its creator and its main content it is difficult to tell what the true purpose of the documentary is. One the one hand, it is not very difficult to perceive this film as an attack on Thierry Guetta from Banksy, because of Thierry’s rise from obscurity into stardom because of Banksy’s and all of the other “street artists” help, as well as because of Thierry’s merely doing street art for gaining fame like Banksy, his idol, and for amassing wealth. One the other hand, the film could just be recounting the life of Thierry and how he became a street artist. I find myself drawn more towards the thought of this as an attack on Thierry though, as this area is more emphasized, at least from my view. I trust the film, at least in the sense that I trust that the events that were portrayed were accurate, and that most of the interviews done with the artists were true and honest, despite the film being created by Banksy. The film’s strange composition feels awkward, and while some might see this as Banksy’s manipulating the film to turn the audience to his opinion, I see it more as an honest expression of Banksy being unfamiliar with a camera, showing how he is attempting to create a film, even if he is not a film maker. It’s like he said when he saw “Life Remote Control”, Thierry made a film, and he’s no expert.

The Thin Red Line

Technically, films do not need a plot to be considered good films. All that a film needs, in order to be considered a good film, is a story, as well as actors and sets for the story to play out on. As long as the characters are able to give a performance which is able to show human emotion, as well as show a mood through complex character interactions, the plot while not unwanted, is not completely necessary. On the other hand, plot is incredibly important from the same perspective, that being from merely the use of characters and story, as the plot is what helps motivate the characters, as well as create a main goal for the characters to eventually meet and create the denouement for the film. A film which having no plot, or at least the appearance of no plot, would most likely lead to a film whose character just wanders throughout the story, without purpose and, most likely, with no real conclusion that could give any release to the audience members watching the film. That said, again, it is possible for the film to remain, essentially, plotless, however it would be much more difficult to set the mood and tell the story. These issues however need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, as some films may be capable of telling a story with no plot, while others are not.

Pan's Labyrinth

While it was not absolutely necessary, the basing of Pan’s Labyrinth in a real historical event complemented the film very effectively. Having Pan’s Labyrinth to be set in an actual event that took place helped the film in several subtle ways, not least of all being that it grounded it fairly effectively in realism, despite its incredibly gothic fantasy atmosphere. Despite fairies, faun, and other mystical creatures flitting across the screen for half of the production, there is an equal amount of guerrilla warfare occurring between a disreputable and highly belligerent military general captain and a group of guerrilla fighters attempting to defy him and Spain’s fascist government, all while guerrilla informants are working in the military camp. While this could have caused the movie to seem schizophrenic and unbalanced, it manages to both ground the story in realism and create a goal for the main heroine, Ofelia, to escape from the oppression that she receives in the realistic war stricken world concentrated in the form of her adopted father, the belligerent captain, and escape to her fantasy world where she can be free of her need to obey the captain. The theme of sacrifice and obedience is also seen very often in the film, especially concerning her three trials. In the first trial she is forced to crawl through a muddy labyrinth within a tree, and while not exactly tolling it does cause her to sacrifice the dress her mother made her, and causes her to disobey her own mother as well. In the next trial she is ordered not to eat from the table, a sacrifice because it holds an exquisite banquet. When she disobeys this order, she is told that she will no longer be allowed back to her world, itself another sacrifice because she wishes to go escape to another world. Finally, in her last trial she is ordered to sacrifice her own brother, an order which she disobeys and instead sacrifices herself for, thus allowing her to escape. In all three trials she was ordered to do something, and at some point during every trial she disobey an order and had to sacrifice something.

Robocop & Violence

While it is easy to see that there are multiple examples of violence in “Robocop”, both the gritty realistic violence, and the “fun” violence, in its entirety, “Robocop” lends itself more to the “fun” violence school of thought. While I would not say that there is absolutely no part of this movie grounded in realism, the film does extend more to an “artistic” style of incredibly over the top, “fun” violence. On the other hand, the cartoonish style violence does not lend itself to fun, and can create rather disquieting responses to certain violent scenes, opposed to what the normal reaction to cartoonish violence is. While in the beginning of the film there were several examples of rather gory violence, it could be seen as merely a way to help the audience understand the amount of pain that certain characters were suffering. For instance, the scene in which Murphy is being held at gunpoint and then shot at uses its violent levels of gore rather well, first when the criminals blow off his hand and arm, and then riddle his entire body with bullets. The progression of gory violence serves to show in just how much trouble Murphy is, and serves as a set-up to his need for a robotic body. However, later into the movie we witness other scenes, each containing as much, if not more, gore, which conversely does nothing to further the plot and instead serves as merely a filler in the movie. While some may find that this childish portrayal of violence is entertaining the rest of us can be merely shocked at it, trying to understand its purpose. Even when it is Murphy himself that is using this violence on others, the shock is only lessened, because it is being acted out by a character who we see as not only the protagonist, but a good man, both because of his roots as a police officer, and as the Robocop. Needless to say, I do not believe that it is possible to classify “Robocop” as a unique or “artsy” film based solely on its portrayal of violence, but that it is more apt as a “popcorn” film, meant to be entertaining to everyone, but without any true deep meaning.