MYST: American Psycho

American Psycho

After watching this movie with my squeamish younger sister–which probably wasn't the best idea– I was able to determine that American Psycho is a 3 1/2 Didomenico kind of movie. While the storyline had me very intrigued with the complicated main character, there were parts that were quite boring or totally unrelatable.  In this film, Patrick Batemen, the main character, is a very confident, harsh, greedy man with similar friends. The movie has an interesting portrayal of the wealthy class, showing them as overly self-absorbed and ignorant. 

The Camera

Throughout this movie, camera shots, angles, and movement play an extremely important role when developing the character of Patrick Bateman. In one particular scene, a prostitute gets up to leave Bateman's bed, where he and an escort are laying. As she takes one last glance at the two, before walking out the door, she clearly sees something disturbing, as shown in the unnerving look on her face. The camera then zooms into the bed, showing blood begin to seep through the beige sheets followed by the escort screaming, indicating that Bateman is at it again. Mid-kill, Bateman notices the prostitute running away and immediately begins chasing her. He disappears for a moment and the camera begins following closely behind the prostitute, catching all of her frantic movements as she tries to find her way out of the apartment. In doing so, she stumbles upon the bloodied bodies of Bateman's previous victims. Suddenly, the sound of a chainsaw emerges and Bateman is shown wielding his weapon. The camera now follows Bateman closely as he darts after his victim. The whole time, Bateman and his victim are shown at eye level to each other–up until now. As the prostitute runs down the spiraling stairs, Bateman, shot from a low angle, peers down at her, calculating when it will be perfect to release the chainsaw. He finally does so, and it hits her dead on. His bloodied face is then shown again, yelling down to his latest victim at the foot of the stairs. He looks pleased with his work as he grins.

It is very common for the camera to follow Bateman, tracking his intense actions. This is done to make the viewer feel as if they are in his psychopathic shoes. The movement also switches to the perspective of Bateman's victim, using the handheld camera method to emulate actions of one running. This builds suspense, further making the viewer feel anxious and uneasy, while being chased alongside Bateman's victim. The camera angles of this movie were not at all what I was expecting. Patrick Bateman, the clearly dominant and forceful role is typically eye level with the rest of the characters. Instead of using low angles to show his dominance, the camera portrays Bateman the same as the other characters. Upon further examination, I realize this tactic was used to make Bateman fit in with his friends, just as he was doing in society. He may have been psychotically murdering people left and right, but his public appearance remained stable. He seemed normal, just as everyone else, which, in my opinion, makes the story even scarier. It suggests that there can be homicidal psychopaths walking among us without drawing any suspicion. 

In the opening scene of the movie, the camera pans through Patrick Batman's apartment. Everything appears to be orderly and in pristine condition. The place is nearly perfect, which is ironic because Bateman's mind is quite the opposite. It is filled with very dark, disturbing thoughts. There is also a very prominent theme of black and white. I figure this is a metaphor for Bateman's life. He appears to be perfect on the outside. He is in shape, good looking, intelligent, very wealthy, popular amongst his friends, and engaged to a beautiful woman, all by the age of 27. To some people, that's the whole package; everything they want their life to be. The good side of Bateman is represented by the white color, eluding to purity and innocence. On the other hand, Bateman is a homicidal maniac with no feelings. People like him are often considered the worst, sickest part of society, which is why the black is also present in the scene. It represents Bateman's dark character. However the two colors are evenly dispersed throughout the apartment, possibly signifying that all of the "good" Bateman has is evenly balanced with the "bad." And as I explained earlier, he has a whole lot of good in his life at the moment. 

I recently watched a film with a fairly similar story. Serial Mom is a dark comedy about someone you'd never expect to be a serial killer. In this movie, the mother of two children murders anyone who wrongs, or even slightly annoys, her family. Both American Psycho and Serial Mom have a very interesting twist on the typical serial killer movie. Both films add in a touch of comedy on top of all  the suspense and gore, which is something I rarely get to see. These movies didn't just attempt to incorporate humor, they were quite successful in doing so. I can honestly say I laughed out loud during scenes of both movies.

Momento

Editing

The Good
The film Momento uses very interesting editing to tell a complex story. In one particular scene, Sammy Jenkis, one of Lenny's subjects of examination for his insurance job, is shown sitting in a chair of a retirement home or hospital. We learned previously that Sammy had the same condition as Lenny, not being able to create new memories, and therefore not knowing what was currently happening. He looks confused and is obviously alone in the scene. After showing this shot for a few seconds, the camera jumps and suddenly flashes an image of Lenny in Sammy's place. He too has the expression of confusion on his face, resembling Sammy. This is a great method of foreshadowing. By the end of the movie, it is revealed that Lenny turned his situation into Sammy's. As it turns out, Sammy had no wife at all. Therefore it was Lenny's wife who had diabetes and made Lenny shoot her with insulin too many times.

Another edit that I loved was Natalie's big scene. The audience is first shown a small clip, so forms an opinion based on that shot. Then, through the next 20 minutes or so of the film, they stick to that mindset. When the second half of the scene is finally revealed, the opinion changes drastically and the viewer develops the feeling of being lied to. It makes the audience not know who to trust, kind of like how the main character, Lenny, feels on a daily basis. In the scene, Natalie is first shown walking into her house all disheveled and bleeding. When Lenny rushes to her side, asking what's wrong, she claims someone named Dodd beat her up, in search of Jimmy's money. Lenny promises to take care of Dodd for her. Jump to a couple scenes later and it shows that same scene, only this time it is played after an immensely important scene. Natalie is shown as a monster in this scene. She goes from the victim to the bully in a very short amount of time. She claims that Lenny has memory loss because of a disease that his wife gave him. In response, Lenny punches her to make her stop talking. That is how she gets the bloody nose and split lip, not form Dodd as originally thought. I think this scene is very important for the movie, showing that you can truly trust no one. 

The Bad (kinda)

In another scene, the editing is very essential to the overall story. Throughout this movie, there had been two different storylines, eventually connecting at the end of each scene. One of those stories was told in color and the other in black and white. At one point of the movie, the two come together and the overall plot finally makes sense to the viewer. In the scene, Lenny takes a picture of someone he has just killed, someone he initially thought was John G. This sequence is shown in black and white. As the polaroid picture he took develops, the color changes along with the photo. When the polaroid receives its color, so does the movie. I thought that this editing brought the two parts together perfectly. While I believe this to be a great scene, I unfortunately found a mistake! In this black and white real-time scene showing the dead Jimmy on the floor, his head is facing upright. However, in the polaroid picture, his head is looking to the right. And, typically, dead bodies don't move! The scene would have been perfect is not for that small editing mistake. 

Concept

As I was explaining before, this movie does a fantastic job of putting the audience into the movie, specifically, into the main character's shoes. In many shots, after watching some jump-cuts and flashbacks between scenes, I found myself confused, just as Lenny was throughout the film. As the movie goes on, and the two storylines are edited together, the viewer learns more and more about Lenny's situation. We learn to not trust anyone and that memory is not as reliable as we may think it to be, especially when we are deciding alongside Lenny whether to trust Natalie or Teddy. The disorienting editing of this movie plays along perfectly with the overall tone. Each scene feels like we are starting a whole new movie, as if we are waking up, as Lenny likes to compare his condition to. 

Other Movies

As far as other movies that have similar editing to Momento, the first that comes to mind is the infamous Wizard of Oz. That movie also does a great job of mixing the black and white scenes with those of color. The black and white is meant to be the realistic scenes, kind of like the black and white scenes in Momento are supposed to show the real-time or present events of the movie. However, the Wizard of Oz has a much simpler theme, only having black and white scenes at the beginning and end of the movie whereas Momento's trade off throughout the film. I also thought this movie had editing like Citizen Kane, with all of the flashbacks. In both movies, flashback scenes are very important to the development of the story and viewer understanding. 

Formal Film Study: Psychological Thrillers

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)                                                  The Shining (1980)
Director: Robert Jonathan Demme               vs                   Director: Stanley Kubrick

Style:
The Silence of the Lambs and The Shining are similar in terms of style. Both movies can be considered thrillers with a psychological twist, exploring the darker side of the human condition. According to Box Office Mojo, both films were budgeted at 19 million, but The Silence of the Lambs did much better in the box office, making a domestic total of $132,742,922, while The Shining only made $44,017,374.  The Shining is a bit slower paced than The Silence of the Lambs. It begins with a "normal" family going to stay at a hotel. It is not until near halfway through the movie that the main character, Jack, finally loses his mind completely, going after his wife and young child. On the contrary, The Silence of the Lambs opens with a student of the FBI Academy receiving an urgent assignment from her teacher and future boss, kicking the movie off with some action. He wants her to interview a convicted murderer/cannibal Hannibal Lecter, in hopes of shedding new light on a recent serial killer investigation involving "Buffalo Bill."
The Silence of the Lambs includes some very interesting camera shots compared to The Shining, in my opinion. I feel The Silence of the Lambs is more of a visual movie, while The Shining really emphasizes parallels and hidden meanings. Because of this, there is more meaning in the camerawork of The Silence of the Lambs than that of The Shining. 
Since The Silence of the Lambs is a movie about investigation, many scenes show characters finding or examining evidence. The camera moves in such a way that the viewer feels like he is looking at a piece of evidence through the eyes of the investigator. There is a lot of panning camera movement throughout the movie, as if someone was turning his/her head towards the object at the end of the pan. This movie also has a theme of looking into someone's eyes. I assume that is because some people believe that the eyes are the windows to the soul, where all truth lies. In a movie about murder investigation, including this "truth" aspect fits into the story perfectly.

Technology:
Both The Silence of the Lambs and The Shining are relatively old movies. I say that with hesitation because 1991 really isn't old in the grand scheme of things, just in the world of technological advancement. Because of this, both movies have fairly simple special effects, most having to do with blood. One of the few special effects that really stands out is The Shining's elevator scene. In this scene, it appears as though gallons upon gallons of blood is pouring out of an elevator door. While the scene may seem very complex, it was actually a pretty simple move on the director's part. The elevator set was actually a miniature version of the real one. That way, Kubrick could shoot as many takes as he needed without ruining a whole room every time. Similarly, Demme incorporated some fake blood during the Hannibal Lecter kill scenes in The Silence of the Lambs.  This is much simpler than the infamous elevator scene, but still considered an important special effect for the story.
As I stated before, The Silence of the Lambs contains many investigatory scenes involving eyes and the act of camera panning to mirror investigation. To do so, the director added many camera shots that were lengthy in duration, following the subject of the scene. The camera seemed to be following the action as opposed to jump cutting between scenes. Similarly, The Shining also contains some longer camera shots. For example, when Johnny's child, Danny, is riding his tricycle through the hallways of the hotel, the camera swiftly follows the trike instead of cutting the shot. This ensures the viewer will relate to the character, being able to put themselves in his shoes(or rather, tricycle seat).

American Culture/History & Hidden Meanings:
The Shining is a very complex movie involving many hidden meaning regarding the culture of the time and history. The Silence of the Lambs, on the other hand, is fairly straight forward in terms of what it's trying to say. There are many instances in Kubrick's film where he incorporated hidden messages in scenes. One of the most popular is the conspiracy theory of the Apollo 11 moon landing being a hoax. There is a theory circulating the internet that America faked the moon landing to get ahead of Russia in the space race. It is thought that Stanley Kubrick was the director who made the video and pictures possible. Afterwards, it is said that Kubrick felt guilty and wanted to confess his involvement. He apparently did so through The Shining. There are many instances in the film when space travel is brought up. The most blatant would probably be the scene where Danny is wearing an Apollo 11 sweater. In another scene, a picture on a refrigerator shows a spaceship during takeoff. Jack's famous written line, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," is said to intentionally begin with the word "All," looking like A11, as in Apollo 11.  In the food pantry of the hotel, there is packaged powered food, like the kind astronauts eat. Lastly, room 237 of the Overlook Hotel may have been a large part of the movie because Earth is 237,000 miles from the moon. The list of these strange occurrences goes on and on. Is all of this simple coincidence? It very well could be. However, Kubrick was known for being very meticulous while directing his movies and is said to have placed every detail in his sets intentionally.

Another cultural reference is all of the Native American furniture and decorations in the Overlook Hotel. Although it is explained that the hotel was built on an ancient burial ground, it is also assumed that Kubrick is hinting at America's history with the conflict between early American settlers and the country's native people. Throughout the movie, there is a constant theme of red, white, and blue, which is often related to America. In fact, the owner of the hotel even looks like John F. Kennedy, wearing the patriotic colors and also having an American flag on his desk and an eagle statue behind him.
In comparison, The Silence of the Lambs is less a movie about symbolisms and hidden messages. Despite this fact, I have heard that, similar to The Shining, nothing is random. In the scene when Hannibal Lecter warns Starling to not bore him with questions, he goes on to explain that a census taker once pushed him too far with questions. In response, Lecter "ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti." Besides the liver/cannibalism part, this may seem like a harmless meal. However, upon further investigation, it is clear that Lecter intentionally rattled off those ingredients to the psychologist FBI trainee. Apparently, those foods could be very dangerous and potentially fatal when mixed with certain medications ranging from depression to multiple personalty disorders treatments. This is a clue that Lecter is off his meds, a very scary thought after hearing about what the psychopath is capable of.

My Discovery:
Both films hint at the fact that women are weak in comparison to men, but eventually get the last say, or, in other words, win. In The Silence of the Lambs, FBI trainee Starling is shown walking through an official building looking for her boss. When she gets into the elevator, she is very clearly the only woman, completely surrounded by much taller, buffer men. She is shown looking up while some of the men are looking down on her, as if belittling her.

Throughout the movie, she is constantly taken advantage of being of her gender. When she first speaks with Lecter, some of the other inmates say very inappropriate and crude comment about her as she walks by. One action even makes her cry, one of the oldest signs of weakness. However, by the end of the movie, Starling has found the culprit and even shoots him, killing him. This defeats the initially assumed stereotype that women are weak, as she comes out victorious. Similarly, Jack's wife, Wendy, is shown as a weak character throughout the film, constantly crying in fear of her crazy husband. When Jack is breaking down the door to the bathroom she is stashed in, she can do nothing but stand there frozen, screaming. She is clearly the victim and the weaker of the two in this situation. At the end of The Shining, Wendy is able to escape the hotel (and the clutches of her psychotic husband) with her son, Danny. Jack is then shown frozen to death. Both of these movies have an overarching theme of female triumph, showing both woman as protagonist characters who ultimately win by the end of the film.

Horror movies tend to be made for males, especially teenager males who happen to have a higher sex drive. Because of this, many of the main characters/victims are young females. In Texas Chainsaw Massacre, for example, one of the first victims is a helpless female, who also happens to be half clothed. Again, in Psycho, the victim is a pretty young woman who is slain while taking a shower. This theme occurs over and over again, however The Shining and The Silence of the Lambs were able to break from the traditional female victim path, which is quite refreshing if you ask me.

I highly recommend both of these movies, if you still want to watch them after all of that ^^^. Roger Ebert awarded both movies with four stars and I couldn't agree more. They get the viewers thinking while also putting them on the edge of their seats. Check out Ebert's reviews here:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-shining-1980
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-silence-of-the-lambs-1991

Citizen Kane Try #2

Camera Shots/Angles/Movement

1.) This movie does a fantastic job of portraying tone and mood through camerawork. In this first scene I have chosen to highlight, a medium camera shot shows Kane dancing in a crowd at a party, highlighting his light-hearted behavior. He dances among all of the women while Bernstein and Leland are juxtaposed in the corner of the room, discussing serious topics. Leland is shown with a close-up on his hard-looking face. Bernstein, shown with a close-up but in the background, asks what's wrong. This gives Leland the power in this scene. He is the biggest and most in-focus character portrayed thus far.  It is also clear that Leland has become uncertain of Kane, thinking he really only cares about power and popularity. Leland and Bernstein then converse about the faithfulness of Kane's new staff that he essentially stole from the Chronicle. At this time, the camera faces all three of the men, with Kane dancing in between the other two. This shows that he is the topic of their conversation and also the factor that has brought the two together. The camera then switches to Kane's perspective, showing Leland and Bernstein still heavy in discussion with Kane's window reflection now dancing in between them. His reflection is placed so perfectly, in fact, that I think it was meant to represent a puzzle piece, similar to the puzzle that Kane's second wife later works on, fitting perfectly in place.

The next moment I chose differs greatly from that first scene. This part of the movie is not a flashback like most other scenes. It is supposed to be modern day, a short time after news of Kane's death reaches the public. The scene begins with a close-up of a mural of Susan Kane's young face, which will later be explained. As the camera pans up, it passes the mural, eventually reaching a neon sign on the roof of the building that reads, "El Rancho, Floor Show Twice Monthly, Susan Alexander Kane." After this setting has been established, the camera continues on, panning over to a window on the roof and then through it. It continues its journey down towards the main floor of the building and finally reaches an older, very sad looking Susan  Kane. Filmed with a long shot, she sits on a chair with her head in her arms, apparently mourning the death of her ex husband. Standing very upright, which is a total opposite to the slumped over Alexander, a waiter guides a journalist to the table. The camera has finally met its destination, so discontinues the panning. A journalist enters the picture, his back towards the camera, to ask Alexander what she knows regarding Charlie's last words. He is silhouetted to perhaps add a bit of mystery to the character, or show that the scene is really not focused on him but rather the subjects of his interviews. 

2.) One scene that could have done more was the part when Susan Alexander Kane is trying to sing to the voice coach and is being insulted for her ability. This is clearly a very traumatic scene for Alexander, as she is being told she will never make it on stage. The scene begins with three people in focus: Alexander, sitting across from her voice teacher and pianist. While the two men are facing the piano, listening to Alexander belt some mediocre sound, Kane silently enters the room. He is shown in the background of a medium close-up shot of the three at the piano. As the voice teacher begins yelling that it is impossible for Alexander to sing, Kane steps in suddenly to defend his wife. However, his harsh yelling is just shown in the background of the initial three characters. I think that Kane should have been depicted as more menacing. This was one of the first times he was really controlling in the marriage between him and Susan Alexander, so I think a shot like a close-up would have captured more of his hostility. The camera is also fairly stationary in this scene, when I think it could have moved around more. The scene continues with Alexander finishing the song. She looks to the distance unhappily as Kane listens. I don't hate this scene, I just think it fell a but short. Throughout this movie, the camera is always in action. This is one of the few scenes that it stays almost completely still. And to be honest, it's a bit boring. 

3.) Camera Shots/Angles/Movement

This film did a fantastic job with the camera movement. Throughout the different scenes, the camera pans in and out, using almost impossible-looking techniques at times. Continuously the camera will move through objects to get from place to place, which is a very effective tool. It brings a sense of wonder to the viewer while also keeping the movie flowing, which is very important in a movie with a weaving storyline. The camera shots really told the story, explaining who was important, what they were thinking, and so on. When a character was shot with  close-up, it was likely that character was to some degree bad, like when Leland first questions Kane, or when Kane writes Susan's bad opera review. It shows emotion when words cannot. Angles also helped to show this emotion. Many times Kane was filmed with a low angle, so it appeared he was looking down on many people. This gave him the appearance of being powerful and also menacing at times. His victims, usually Susan, were typically shown with a high angle, so it appeared they were being looked down upon. 

4.) The movie Pulp Fiction actually used many of the same camera techniques. Like Citizen Kane, Pulp Fiction has a woven storyline, connecting seemingly random scenes into one plot. The two movies, while immensely different, use the same angle techniques for depicting characters. When the two main characters of Pulp Fiction get their weapons out of he trunk of their car, the camera is looking up at them from inside the trunk, just as person might be. Being shot with a low angle makes the two seem like a dangerous, powerful couple of guys, very similar to Kane. 

1935 Movie: Happy Wife

Happy Wife

1. Happy Wife is a drama about a once wealthy family struggling through the Great Depression. Having an overall dark yet sleek tone, this movie focuses heavily on the role of the wife/mother figure, known as Lucille James. While the economy crash took a heavy toll on her husband, Raymond's, income, it's up to Lucille to try to hold the household together and properly raise her two children. Struggling to make ends meet, while still trying to maintain their lavish lifestyle and public image, Lucille is forced to get an undesirable "job." Little does she know, this new career path (which may involve becoming an prostitute) may be more than she can handle. With her family now in danger, Lucille has to fight for their safety. I think an audience in 1935 can definitely relate to the financial struggles of this time, but would also be interested in seeing a bit of "movie-magic" added to the mix. Since this film shows the downfall of a rather luxurious family, average people may find it interesting to see how the "other half lives" (or at least deals with financial problems for the first time in their lives). This movie does a great job of humanizing everyone. Many times people judge others for how much, or little, they have. In a time when America as a whole is struggling, people care less about possession and more about the quality of people in their lives. This movie is meant to get the viewer's thinking.

2. Losing your fortune seems to be an American's worst nightmare, so, I decided that deeming this movie a "drama" would fit well. Prostitution is also seen as a very harsh and desperate way of making money. It typically portrays someone who has hit rock bottom. This film should have its audience both on the edge of their seats and in tears. If that's not drama, I don't know what is.

3. I chose to have Paramount Pictures make this film. I thought it would be a good fit due to the amount of freedom that the directors were given. Not anyone could just make Happy Wife. It's a very complicated and artistic movie, especially with its controversial plot line. Not many studios could get away with such.

4. This film was directed by Cary Grant. Known for his European style Paramount movies, I thought he would be prefect for this. Having grown up with an institutionalized mother, Grant would know how to portray a family with a very absent mother character. He knows how to handle drama, despite his appreciation of comedies.
The lead role, Lucille James, is played by Miriam Hopkins. She was very liked in the Paramount world for her versatility between roles and was very pretty, so is the perfect subject for leading a secretive double life.
The lead male role, Raymond, went to Herbert Marshall. He was often times the husband figure in Paramount movies. He also plays a very good elegant character, which fits the role. He was also a World War 1 veteran who lost a leg, which got him some major sympathy points. Especially when he plays the poor husband who lost all his fortune and is now being lied to by his wife.
Of course, we had the Westmore family in charge of everyone's makeup. They really are the kings of the make up industry these day, in the 1930's. They don't only do monster makeup well, they made our cast absolutely beautiful. A family who should appear very wealthy and luxurious should have some very nice looking faces as well.
Since the 1930s was the sound era's coming of age, we decided to add in a musical number. While this goes against the typical norm, we thought it would be a nice change to the movie industry. In Lucille's lowest moment of the movie, she breaks out in a dramatic solo, singing beautifully but also in agony. I think it makes the audience feel for her even more so.
This movie also focuses on the cinematography aspect as well. You see, the biggest challenge of making this movie was showing riskay scenes without actually showing anything bad, per say. Because of this, we had to get creative. We used many close up scenes of our character's faces, to really show their emotions and not their bodies as much.

5. Hays Code definitely put many restrictions on this movie. The plot line itself was almost rejected for being too sexual. However, after pulling some strings and asking for some personal favors, we were able to rewrite the original plot line to make the movie more appropriate. We were able to show that breaking the law, aka the prostitution aspect of the movie, was not good or acceptable by any means. In fact, we actually show the negative consequences of breaking the law. In addition, we make the audience think about their lives, but in a beneficial way. After watching this film, audiences should think less of their materials and more about the people they love.

6. This really is a break-through film of the movie industry. It is unlike any film of its time. While still following the Hays Code (for the most part) this movie was able to express its creativity freely. It is a relatable drama that grabs its audience's attention and won't let go. It's a movie that definitely makes you think.

MYST POST #1: Muriel's Wedding

I went into this movie not knowing what to expect. I had never seen the trailer, read a review, or even heard the title Muriel's Wedding. In fact, it was not until my mom picked it from the countless selections on Netflix that I was able to see this movie is an Australian masterpiece. I am so fond of the movie, in fact, that I award it a solid 4.5 out of 5 Didomenicos. (Yes, that's the star system I have chosen to work with.)

Summary
This movie begins by introducing its protagonist: an awkward and overweight Muriel Heslop (played by the young Toni Collette) who wants nothing more than to become a bride. There is clearly a dark tone established early on in this film. Soon into the movie, it is clear that Muriel plays the victim, being the butt of all the jokes. Often times, she is shown wearing bright colors, making her stand out more than her goofy personality already does. She tends to resemble a clown with her wardrobe and makeup choices. Because of this, she is not accepted by her petite, popular friends and her family is a wreck. Her overworked, overwhelmed, unappreciated mother is struggling to care for her five lazy children. Meanwhile Muriel's father is a sleazy politician who only cares about money and his reputation. He also happens to be cheating on his wife with a much younger woman, who was once a family friend. Muriel's life seems to be hopeless, as she can't even find a job. All of these factors cause the depressed character to spend hours in her room, listening to ABBA- which becomes a major reoccurring theme throughout the movie.
It is not until Muriel runs into an acquaintance from high school, a young woman named Rhonda, that she is pushed out of her shy, awkward shell. Rhonda is the complete opposite of Muriel: she's outgoing, sexual, and very confident, exactly what Muriel needs. The two girls become fast friends and move to Sydney together as a way of starting over, and it only gets more interesting from there.

Scene Composition: Introduction to Muriel
In one of the first scenes, Muriel's home life is introduced. The camera first pans into a wide shot, which shows the setting of a suburban Australian town. This movie does a fantastic job of introducing Muriel's family. First, we hear her father's angry, booming voice, without actually seeing the character yet. Once the camera is inside the house, you immediately see a little girl spinning and crazily dancing. Right away, the father harshly yells at her to get out of the room where he is having a serious (shady) conversation on the phone. He also barks out commands, telling her to have Muriel's mother make him a cup of tea. The camera then follows the little girl into the living room where it shows the children watching tv, being lazy. Upon hearing the tea request, Muriel's older brother calls out "me too!" The scene then cuts to the kitchen where Muriel's mother sloppily makes a cup of tea in the microwave. The shot lingers on the spinning cup, trapped in the microwave. It seems to be a symbol of how the mother feels: trapped in the same dull routine. The scene ends panning out the window, showing a police car bringing Muriel home. The stage has been set: the audience now has a feel for Muriel's saddening home life.

Key Scene: Waterloo
Background: Muriel's popular friends decide to go on a "honeymoon" together after one of the girls, who was recently married, finds out her husband had an affair. De-friending Muriel right before the trip, Muriel decides to surprise them and tags along on the tropical vacation. Instead of rejoicing by the sight of Muriel, as she had hoped, they are outraged and even throw a drink in her face. Later, while sadly eating alone, Muriel is reunited with a high school acquaintance who recognized her. Upon hearing that the former high school bullies are at the same resort, Muriel's new friend, Rhonda decides to have a word with them. She tells the soon-to-be ex-wife of the cheating groom that Muriel saw her best friend, who happens to be standing right next to her, with the groom on the day of the wedding. Immediately following this is the famous "Waterloo" scene.

Muriel and Rhonda are shown on stage in costume. Both in white outfits and wigs, the two friends begin their dance rendition of ABBA's "Waterloo." Previously, one of the popular girls called Muriel out for listening to ABBA, saying it was so not cool to like 70's songs in the 90's. However, Muriel's new friend embraces her music taste. Initially, it is clear that Muriel is very uncomfortable with dancing in front of an audience. While Rhonda rocks the belly shirt and shows that she can really move, Muriel awkwardly dances with a straight face and wears a very unflattering jumpsuit next to her skinny friend. But it is clear that Rhonda doesn't care! Unlike the other girls, Rhonda is not bothered by Muriel's appearance. She is just there to have a good time. The camera pans over to the audience, which shows the four popular girls sitting front and center, the one with a black eye (for obvious reasons). As the crowd claps and cheers louder and louder, it becomes tense between the girls. As the performance goes on, Muriel and Rhonda get closer and closer to the edge of the stage, in other words closer and closer to the four mean girls. At one point the camera zooms in on the ex-bride's face. It is a high angle shot, showing that she is being looked down on. She is less powerful than she was before. Immediately following that shot, is the opposite. Muriel and Rhonda are shot from a low angle, looking down on the popular girls. From that point on, Muriel is smiling. And her dancing becomes much better, as if she has suddenly gained a tremendous amount of confidence. The two tense girls look at each other funny and a physical fight actually breaks out. After pushing a table out of the way, the girls are literally on top of each other, punching, hair-pulling, all of the typical girl fight actions. Typically when men see this, they stop everything and watch. However, it is very clear that the men are not bothered by the fight, and don't even try to break it up. Instead, their eyes are glued to Muriel and Rhonda. This is the first time Muriel has ever had positive attention from a man and is a large turning point in the movie. 

Comparisons
Toni Collette: Muriel's Wedding was one of Toni Collette's first films and even earned her an Academy Award nomination. Collette really is wonderful throughout the film. She conveys so much through her body language and facial expressions alone, that you can feel the torment and turmoil she keeps bottled up without ever having heard her speak. She does a fantastic job of wearing her emotions on her sleeve. Since this early, stellar performance, Collette has appeared in many well-known movies and television shows including The Sixth Sense, Little Miss Sunshine, and more recently, the series United States of Tara. While she initially played a dorky and awkward young woman, she is most known for her motherly roles. Even though she does play roles in comedies, she tends to gravitate towards dramas or dark comedies at the very least. In fact, she is even cast in an upcoming horror movie called Krampus. One consistency I've noticed throughout Collette's films is her amazing ability to cry on command. I mean, check this out...

Director- PJ Hogan: While Hogan may have directed Peter Pan and Dark Shadows, which stray from his typical genre choice, he is a big fan of romantic comedies. Movies he directed like Muriel's Wedding, My Best Friend's Wedding, Unconditional Love, Mental, and Confessions of a Shopaholic all fall into the comedy category. I find it interesting that he directed My Best Friend's Wedding just three years after Muriel's Wedding was released. He also recast Rachel Griffith (Rhonda) in My Best Friend's Wedding. Hogan has a very unique directing style. He loves small details. Many of his movie must be watched multiple times to get the full effect. In fact, he adds so much detail that it is hard not to miss something the first time around. In Muriel's Wedding, there are many hidden facts that could easily go unnoticed if one isn't tentative. For example, it would have been easy to miss the fact that Muriel's father pulled some string in immigration and got a Chinese restaurant owner's uncle out of China. As a thanks, he and his family or clients are given free food, which explain the multiple scenes shown in that restaurant. Hogan also decided to make most of the music in the movie ABBA music. This went along nicely with the character's love for the old band, but also kept an upbeat tone to this dark comedy. It is even played at Muriel's wedding to show how quirky Muriel's personality is and added humor when the bridesmaids tried walking down the aisle in sync.

Review of Reviews// American Ultra

1. The Bad, by Rafer Guzman 
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/american-ultra-review-one-toke-and-a-few-sins-over-the-line-1.10751458
The author of this review made his point very clear and practical, at times making me question my own opinion of the movie. Guzman begins his review with a comparison to another well-known action/stoner movie Pineapple Express. He decides that American Ultra simply does not live up to its potential, even going as far as saying the movie's comedic tone was killed by all of the gruesome violence. Guzman uses the line "American Ultra forgets about its marijuana motif and quickly turns dark," to further explain how this movie gets sidetracked. On top of that, Jesse Eisenberg is said to be miscast. His "twitchy" attitude deems him "too naturally high-strung to play a space-case."

2. The Good, Chris Vogner
http://www.guidelive.com/movie-reviews/2015/08/20/american-ultra
The author of this review praises American Ultra for its strong but unique plot line. While Vogner claims it may follow similar story lines, again bringing up the previous example of Pineapple Express, he furthers his thesis by claiming the movie knows "exactly what it wants to do, and then does it with a blend of brute force and surprising tenderness." Furthermore, Vogner appreciates all of the movie references made in American Ultra, including scenes that are spun-off popular action films like The Terminator, Blade Runner, The Manchurian Candidate, and the Bourne movies. This film is said to work beautifully by making a potentially messy story quite straightforward and easy to follow. Concluding his review, Vogner applauds the costarring roles, saying they were cast perfectly for what the movie was trying to get across.

2. In Rafer's review, he claims "After introducing John Leguizamo as a kooky drug dealer, "American Ultra" forgets about its marijuana motif and quickly turns dark." After seeing this movie in theaters, I have to agree with this point. I was definitely expecting more of a stoner comedy, like Pineapple Express. However, I got much more of an action film with a lot of violence. After the intro, this movie seems to get off track and completely forget about the stoner aspect. I can't say I hated it, but I think the trailer was very misleading. I had been expecting to laugh most of the movie, as opposed to wincing and struggling to hold down my popcorn at times.

In Vogner's review, he says, "Ultra works by making a potentially messy story rather simple, and by using its carnage as an extension of its comedy. It has no interest in piling on plot minutiae. It's too busy getting to the next bit of mayhem." I definitely agree with this statement. Throughout the movie, the action continues to draw viewers in. There are endless scenes of suspense and it definitely left me wondering 'Where the hell is this movie going?' While the plot was easy to follow at the moment, there was really no saying where the twists and turns of the film would take it.

3. In my opinion, the bad review is more convincing, because of how brutally honest it is. It says that this movie is nothing more than a bad spin-off of most other action films. It also claims that the movie get very distracted from its initial comedic stoner theme and really overdoes it with the violence. Knowing how most action movies like that go, I would definitely trust this review. On top of that, looking at the character list isn't very reassuring. Rafer also says that the characters seem miscast. I think that's pretty believable because Jesse Eisenberg is most known for his roles in The Social Network and Rio, both of which are very far from an action story line.


4. I would absolutely include the fact that the movie drifts far from its original stoner comedy plot. The trailer really seems to focus on the drug use while the movie does quite the opposite. I would also explain that there is a lot of violence in this movie. However, I feel that most of the violence was necessary to correctly get the theme of the movie across: a slacker, stoner kid finds out he's a specially engineered government agent that has the ability to kill people with random objects in the room (like a spoon). This movie definitely keeps the viewer's attention and I would say there were very few slow moving or boring parts. I wanted to see how everything worked out, which, of course, it did. While the ending of this movie may have been predictable, there were also many shocking scenes that I was not at all expecting.