As I'm sure is the case with many students in this class, I cannot even count the number of times that I have seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, this was my first time seeing the film on a big screen and in an academic setting, and I have to admit, this didn't much change my viewing of the film! Although the action sequences were more impressive on a larger scale, of course, and the set pieces dazzled more than ever, I still felt like I was just sitting back and having a good time with a great adventure movie. I let myself "get into" the film and take me for a ride, following Indiana Jones through his series of chases, battles, and pursuits of marvelous treasures. As always, I enjoyed the ride and felt like cheering when Indy finally beat the bad guys in the end. That's not to say that Raiders of the Lost Ark is just a piece of mindless entertainment, because it most certainly isn't! I just believe that Raiders is a better action film than it is an object of academic study. However, as Warren Buckland points out, Raiders of the Lost Ark definitely has plenty worth examining -- from its references to B-movie serials to its excellent use of off-screen space.
Buckland compares Raiders of the Lost Ark to a 1942 Republic serial called Nyoka and the Tigermen, highlighting many of the parallels between them, such as searching for a golden treasure or the female lead being tied up inside a tent, even down to a pet monkey appearing in both. While Nyoka and Raiders definitely share a number of similarities, I also was surprised how similar Raiders was to the Republic serial that we watched in class, Jungle Girl. In that one, the hero even runs from a rolling boulder -- and that's as classic Indiana Jones as you can get! Buckland also analyzes a number of scenes in the film where Spielberg uses his trademark technique of manipulating the audience's expectations through off-screen space. He describes a few key instances where this takes place, such as when the camera follows Indy through the forest, and only after he escapes from the cave with the idol do we find that this POV watching Indy came from his enemy Belloch and the Hovitos Indians working with him. In class, we talked about this use of off-screen space quite a bit, looking at how it can be both a menacing presence and a "savior" in the film, as in the scene with the Guardian Statue.
Raiders of the Lost Ark will always hold a special place in my heart, but not for its technical profiency, abundance of serial references, or masterful uses of off-screen space. Instead, I feel nostalgic watching Raiders of the Lost Ark again because of its engaging and fantastic story that established one of the most iconic characters in the history of cinema, Indiana Jones. And to top it off, it's a great action/adventure film that will always keep me entertained!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
E.T. Will Always "Be Right Here"
E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial is yet another one of Spielberg's contemporary classics (following Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark) that has become an important part of today's pop culture, and it will likely remain that way for quite some time. Almost everyone has seen the image of Elliot's bicycle flying across the moon or heard the line "E.T. phone home," even if they have never seen the film. The movie is so often discussed and quoted that even those who haven't seen E.T. feel like they know it backward and forward. For example, I watched the film with my roommate, who was convinced that she had seen it as child, but she discovered as we watched it that she had only heard so much about it that she felt like she had when she really had not. I believe the reason for this phenomenon, and the reason that E.T. has become such a sensation in our society, is that it "connects to audiences by focusing on shared childhood experiences," as Warren Buckland points out. As Buckland says, "part of the film's success lies in its ability to capture the mood and tone of childlike idealism and optimism." This is the reason that so many people hold E.T. close to their hearts or describe the movie as making them "feel like a kid." This is also one of many reasons that Andrew Gordon analyzes E.T. as a Spielbergian fairy tale.
Gordon compares E.T. to such classic fairy tale stories as "The Frog King" and Peter Pan. The latter of these is especially relevant when thinking about Buckland's point, since the major themes that this film and Peter Pan share in common (as Gordon describes) are those of never growing up and living out childhood fantasies, which ultimately allows the characters to fly. It is this flying scene (or the longest and most memorable of the flying scenes), where the children are all on their bikes taking E.T. back to his spaceship, that is responsible for the famous image of the bicycle crossing the moon mentioned above. (It is also interesting to note that this eventually became the logo for Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment.) I surprisingly liked Gordon's analysis of E.T. as a fairy tale after despising his attack on Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Perhaps though, that was because I am a die-hard Spielberg fan and while Gordon hated Close Encounters he actually admits that he enjoys E.T. I thought his rationale for distinguishing between the two, however, was slightly ridiculous. He repeatedly mentions the similarities between E.T. and Close Encounters in terms of plot, themes, and images, and it seems that the only reason Gordon enjoys or accepts these in E.T. is that the film is told from a child's point of view and has a child hero whereas Close Encounters is about a grown man. Therefore, he says E.T. is "children's literature" while Close Encounters of the Third Kind is "simply childish." To me, this statement just makes it clear that Gordon simply did not "get" Close Encounters, in the sense that apparently he did not understand that the point of that film is just that -- that Roy acts like a child and this prevents him from assuming his responsibilities as a father.
In any case, Gordon is partially right that E.T. is meant more for children, or at least as a "family film." However, I do not think that this causes the film to have any less value or makes it any less worthy of academic study. On the contrary, I think E.T. is one of those films that everyone can relate to and enjoy, which is why I believe it to be a modern classic that will "be right here" for a very long time to come.
Gordon compares E.T. to such classic fairy tale stories as "The Frog King" and Peter Pan. The latter of these is especially relevant when thinking about Buckland's point, since the major themes that this film and Peter Pan share in common (as Gordon describes) are those of never growing up and living out childhood fantasies, which ultimately allows the characters to fly. It is this flying scene (or the longest and most memorable of the flying scenes), where the children are all on their bikes taking E.T. back to his spaceship, that is responsible for the famous image of the bicycle crossing the moon mentioned above. (It is also interesting to note that this eventually became the logo for Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment.) I surprisingly liked Gordon's analysis of E.T. as a fairy tale after despising his attack on Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Perhaps though, that was because I am a die-hard Spielberg fan and while Gordon hated Close Encounters he actually admits that he enjoys E.T. I thought his rationale for distinguishing between the two, however, was slightly ridiculous. He repeatedly mentions the similarities between E.T. and Close Encounters in terms of plot, themes, and images, and it seems that the only reason Gordon enjoys or accepts these in E.T. is that the film is told from a child's point of view and has a child hero whereas Close Encounters is about a grown man. Therefore, he says E.T. is "children's literature" while Close Encounters of the Third Kind is "simply childish." To me, this statement just makes it clear that Gordon simply did not "get" Close Encounters, in the sense that apparently he did not understand that the point of that film is just that -- that Roy acts like a child and this prevents him from assuming his responsibilities as a father.
In any case, Gordon is partially right that E.T. is meant more for children, or at least as a "family film." However, I do not think that this causes the film to have any less value or makes it any less worthy of academic study. On the contrary, I think E.T. is one of those films that everyone can relate to and enjoy, which is why I believe it to be a modern classic that will "be right here" for a very long time to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)