The Shootist (Don Siegel, 1976)
Summary/Questions:
A famous shooter named J.B. Books goes to an old town he went to get examined from to get examined on his back. The doctor has bad news and tells Books he has a cancer on his back. Books can’t believe it and asks the doctor what they can do, but the doctor says he can’t do much except give him pain killers. He also tells Books that he will only live for two months or even less. Book’s asks the doctor if he knows a place he can stay at and he tells books to go to Mrs. Rodgers. At first Mrs. Rodgers doesn’t like him because he lied to her about his name but she let his stay since she felt bad that he has cancer. The marshal comes to the house and wants Books to leave, but after Books tells him he is dying the marshal is so happy he doesn’t care. Mrs. Rodgers son, Gillon, finds out he has a famous shooter staying at his house and is excited. Books has a lot of pain and decides he wants to go out in a huge shootout with old enemies so he tells Gillon to set up a shootout, and the marshal lets them out of jail to try to become a legend. Before Books goes to the shootout he gives Gillon his horse. Books get ready to go to the shootout and goes to the saloon happy. He walks in the saloon calmly and gets the best they got since it’s his birthday. He starts to drinks and he looks in the mirror and sees that his enemies are about to shoot, so he jumps over the bar while they shoot. He takes down one guy easily, but the second guy shoots him in the shoulder, but ends up dying. The last man standing tries to sneak up on Books at the bar but Books shoots him perfectly in the head. Books gets up to go talk to Gillon and the bartender comes out with a shotgun and shoots Books twice in the back. Gillon grabs Books’ gun and kills the bartender. Books lays there dying and when he dies Gillon covers him up and walks out the bar shocked while everyone runs in to look. Gillon walks to his mom and walk home together.
1.) What does the doctor tell Books is wrong with his back?
2.) How long does the doctor tell Books he’ll live for?
3.) Whose house does the doctor tell Books to rent a room from?
4.) How many men has Books killed?
5.) Why does Books lie about his name to Mrs. Rodgers?
6.) Who does Books want to settle old scores with?
7.) What does Books give Gillon before he dies?
8.) Where is Books meeting the guys he is going to shootout with?
9.) How many guys did Books kill in the shootout?
10.) Who ends up killing Books in the end?
by Harrison Difuntorum
Film Analysis of Mise-en-scene, Cinematography, and Editing:
In the film The Shootist, a 1976 Western Film directed by Don Siegel, utilizes very intelligent and well thought out film techniques which make John Wayne’s final film one of the best Westerns in American film history. The cinematography is relatively simple; it doesn’t utilizes any fast zooming or extreme close-ups or longshots or spinning of the camera or anything of a similar nature. However, the way the camera follows the characters and doesn’t move excessively makes the film really feel like a Western film and not like a crazy, fast-paced action or sci-fi movie. One interesting camera motion technique is utilized when the camera shows the view of the drunken and crazed Mike Sweeney before and just after he is shot and killed by John Books-the camera shakes and sputters in order to represent Sweeney’s view. Besides the movement of the camera, the time and place chosen for each scene is masterfully selected. Being created in 1976, which is a relatively modern time, there was almost certainly some artificial light involved. However, the film is supposed to look like it actually took place in the Midwest; as such, the scenes are filmed in places that provide the right amount of light and details to create the appropriate mood of a Western film while keeping it realistic. The editing in the film goes hand-in-hand with the cinematography. The genius portrayed in the editing is most apparent when dialogue occurs in the movie; the camera simply switches back and forth between speakers, depending on who is speaking at a given time. While any director could mimic such a technique, the way Don Siegel has the camera simply cut back and forth between characters (sometimes showing the backs of other characters, sometimes showing minor close-ups, or even just showing a simple medium shot of the speaker) makes the film feel like it is really taking place in the Midwest and all the events being depicted are real.
Another huge film element prominent in The Shootist is of course the mise-en-scene. As previously mentioned, the lighting on-screen is ment to be dim and musty, primarily during indoor scenes, such as in the house of Bond Rogers or in the doctor’s office or the town saloon. These scenes were obviously given much thought-they are supposed to let in just the right amount of light and at the appropriate angles from the windows to maximize realism. Two other key elements of mise-en-scene in the film, the costumes and the set, are the main reasons why this film can be classified as a Western film and not a science fiction. All the actors are wearing clothes from the 18th century, and the buildings are old-fashioned and rudimentary, but in the exact style of buildings from the 1700’s. Most of these buildings were probably created just for the film; there are many nature scenes represented in the film as well, probably to show that the country was less developed and populated during this era. The sounds are another important part of the mise-en-scene. These range from horse whinnies to the clink of a beer bottle against a class to the distinctive sound of spurs on the back of boots clinking on the ground. While most of these sounds are indisputably real, some are probably fabricated all in the effort to create a realistic Western film. There is even music in the film, which is only heard at certain points but really adds a lot to the mood in the film. All in all, the film techniques in The Shootist make it the greatest Western in film history.
by Nick Sichau
Literary Analysis of Point of View, Character, and Theme:
In the 1976 Western film The Shootist, there are many themes and hidden meanings that add to the film and fulfill it. One of these themes could be stated as “Life is short and should be appreciated.” This theme is portrayed through all of the fighting and casualties present throughout the film. It seems almost as if Western life in the 18th century was taken much less seriously then it is today, even though each individual in the film certainly values his life just as much as the main characters value theirs. The frequency of people dying in the film promotes this theme because it makes viewers think about their own lives and how easily they could be lost; it also allows the audience to appreciate life more by realizing how much things have changed for the better in the past several hundred years. Another theme of The Shootest is “Those who take action first are successful.” This is portrayed primarily through J. B. Books’ style of fighting; he realizes that most adversaries hesitate before they pull the trigger, and because of this fact he always pulls the trigger first without pausing to consider who he may be shooting or why. His mentality allows him to live a long, fulfilling life, as he always brings down his enemies before they can bring him down. At one point in the film, he even tells Gillom, “I’ve found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren’t willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger; I won’t.”
The characters in this film are portrayed by very talented actors; they are dynamic and believable and show varying personalities. The main character, J. B. Books, is a smart, egotistic Western shootist who is dying to a cancer. Even in his last days, he barely accepts help from anyone as his ego will not let him. He can also be quite mean or rude sometimes. When a man who petitions John to let him right an exaggerated account of his entire life stops by Bond and Gillom Roger’s house, the place where John Books is renting a room, Books pulls out a gun, forces the man to the front porch of the house, and literally kicks him out warning him to never return. This fact reveals another side of the calm, methodical Books; he can also be a savage and violent man, but he will always do what he has to do to survive-that is his defining characteristic. The teenage son of Bond Rogers, Books’ landlady, Gillom, acquaints himself with John Books throughout the film. He looks up to Books as a kind of hero or role model. Gillom’s personality can be likened to that of a sheep-he doesn’t try to be a leader himself but rather prefers the security of another individual to look up to. He, just like Books, also has a dark side to him. He is sneaky and conniving, and this characteristic shows at certain times, such as the point when Gillom overhears a conversation with Books and the Marshall, or the time when he manages to get three of Books’ enemies to unknowingly get together at the same place at the same time in order to fight Books.
The point of view in this film is third person limited. A film like this obviously should center on J. B. Books, played by John Wayne, as this was his last acting role in a film and his last time playing John Books. Almost every scene in the movie contains Books in some way or form. There are some minor exceptions to this obviously; for example, Books is not present when Gillom goes to see Moses, the town blacksmith, to make an offer on Books’ horse unbeknownst to him. Instances like this create dramatic irony, as things that concern Books are happening behind his back and only the audience knows that they will affect him somehow later. The camera creates point of view mostly through medium shots that usually keep most of the characters in view. Some long shots are used to show characters getting further and further away from a certain point, but that’s about the only deviation from the norm. At some points in dialogue, the camera zooms a little closer to the characters faces than usual in order to show emotion, but this doesn’t happen nearly as much as one would think in such a dramatic film. Overall, however, the camera angles and the scenes portrayed by the camera are well thought out and create for a great Western film.
by Nick Sichau
Film Comparison:
In the film The Shootist, directed by Don Siegel, has many strong points that some films released today have as well. One of these films would be The Gran Torino, I had chosen this film because of many reasons. One of them being story, the story in some way are alike. They both have characters that die in the end, they both are like the old and new versions of each other because of the time each film was set in. And even the antagonists are somewhat similar because they both want something from the protagonist.
Another thing these films have in common is character. They both have and old man whos going to die soon and a young man who becomes a man at the end. The films are different because in The Gran Torino Clint Eastwood doesn't kill anyone but in The Shootist John Wayne does kill people. Both actors were very famous cowboys and the films they were portrayed in were basically their last films. The boys were also the same because they both become a real man at the end when the protagonist die.
Both films had strong relationships. John had strong feelings for Bond and fell in love with her. However Clint had a different kind of love for Thao's sister. Clint loved her like a daughter and he respected her. The feelings both characters had made them look softer than what they actually appeared on the outside. Both the boys also looked up to both the protagonist and looked at them like they were legends, and they gave them their utmost respect.
by Richie Gov
A famous shooter named J.B. Books goes to an old town he went to get examined from to get examined on his back. The doctor has bad news and tells Books he has a cancer on his back. Books can’t believe it and asks the doctor what they can do, but the doctor says he can’t do much except give him pain killers. He also tells Books that he will only live for two months or even less. Book’s asks the doctor if he knows a place he can stay at and he tells books to go to Mrs. Rodgers. At first Mrs. Rodgers doesn’t like him because he lied to her about his name but she let his stay since she felt bad that he has cancer. The marshal comes to the house and wants Books to leave, but after Books tells him he is dying the marshal is so happy he doesn’t care. Mrs. Rodgers son, Gillon, finds out he has a famous shooter staying at his house and is excited. Books has a lot of pain and decides he wants to go out in a huge shootout with old enemies so he tells Gillon to set up a shootout, and the marshal lets them out of jail to try to become a legend. Before Books goes to the shootout he gives Gillon his horse. Books get ready to go to the shootout and goes to the saloon happy. He walks in the saloon calmly and gets the best they got since it’s his birthday. He starts to drinks and he looks in the mirror and sees that his enemies are about to shoot, so he jumps over the bar while they shoot. He takes down one guy easily, but the second guy shoots him in the shoulder, but ends up dying. The last man standing tries to sneak up on Books at the bar but Books shoots him perfectly in the head. Books gets up to go talk to Gillon and the bartender comes out with a shotgun and shoots Books twice in the back. Gillon grabs Books’ gun and kills the bartender. Books lays there dying and when he dies Gillon covers him up and walks out the bar shocked while everyone runs in to look. Gillon walks to his mom and walk home together.
1.) What does the doctor tell Books is wrong with his back?
2.) How long does the doctor tell Books he’ll live for?
3.) Whose house does the doctor tell Books to rent a room from?
4.) How many men has Books killed?
5.) Why does Books lie about his name to Mrs. Rodgers?
6.) Who does Books want to settle old scores with?
7.) What does Books give Gillon before he dies?
8.) Where is Books meeting the guys he is going to shootout with?
9.) How many guys did Books kill in the shootout?
10.) Who ends up killing Books in the end?
by Harrison Difuntorum
Film Analysis of Mise-en-scene, Cinematography, and Editing:
In the film The Shootist, a 1976 Western Film directed by Don Siegel, utilizes very intelligent and well thought out film techniques which make John Wayne’s final film one of the best Westerns in American film history. The cinematography is relatively simple; it doesn’t utilizes any fast zooming or extreme close-ups or longshots or spinning of the camera or anything of a similar nature. However, the way the camera follows the characters and doesn’t move excessively makes the film really feel like a Western film and not like a crazy, fast-paced action or sci-fi movie. One interesting camera motion technique is utilized when the camera shows the view of the drunken and crazed Mike Sweeney before and just after he is shot and killed by John Books-the camera shakes and sputters in order to represent Sweeney’s view. Besides the movement of the camera, the time and place chosen for each scene is masterfully selected. Being created in 1976, which is a relatively modern time, there was almost certainly some artificial light involved. However, the film is supposed to look like it actually took place in the Midwest; as such, the scenes are filmed in places that provide the right amount of light and details to create the appropriate mood of a Western film while keeping it realistic. The editing in the film goes hand-in-hand with the cinematography. The genius portrayed in the editing is most apparent when dialogue occurs in the movie; the camera simply switches back and forth between speakers, depending on who is speaking at a given time. While any director could mimic such a technique, the way Don Siegel has the camera simply cut back and forth between characters (sometimes showing the backs of other characters, sometimes showing minor close-ups, or even just showing a simple medium shot of the speaker) makes the film feel like it is really taking place in the Midwest and all the events being depicted are real.
Another huge film element prominent in The Shootist is of course the mise-en-scene. As previously mentioned, the lighting on-screen is ment to be dim and musty, primarily during indoor scenes, such as in the house of Bond Rogers or in the doctor’s office or the town saloon. These scenes were obviously given much thought-they are supposed to let in just the right amount of light and at the appropriate angles from the windows to maximize realism. Two other key elements of mise-en-scene in the film, the costumes and the set, are the main reasons why this film can be classified as a Western film and not a science fiction. All the actors are wearing clothes from the 18th century, and the buildings are old-fashioned and rudimentary, but in the exact style of buildings from the 1700’s. Most of these buildings were probably created just for the film; there are many nature scenes represented in the film as well, probably to show that the country was less developed and populated during this era. The sounds are another important part of the mise-en-scene. These range from horse whinnies to the clink of a beer bottle against a class to the distinctive sound of spurs on the back of boots clinking on the ground. While most of these sounds are indisputably real, some are probably fabricated all in the effort to create a realistic Western film. There is even music in the film, which is only heard at certain points but really adds a lot to the mood in the film. All in all, the film techniques in The Shootist make it the greatest Western in film history.
by Nick Sichau
Literary Analysis of Point of View, Character, and Theme:
In the 1976 Western film The Shootist, there are many themes and hidden meanings that add to the film and fulfill it. One of these themes could be stated as “Life is short and should be appreciated.” This theme is portrayed through all of the fighting and casualties present throughout the film. It seems almost as if Western life in the 18th century was taken much less seriously then it is today, even though each individual in the film certainly values his life just as much as the main characters value theirs. The frequency of people dying in the film promotes this theme because it makes viewers think about their own lives and how easily they could be lost; it also allows the audience to appreciate life more by realizing how much things have changed for the better in the past several hundred years. Another theme of The Shootest is “Those who take action first are successful.” This is portrayed primarily through J. B. Books’ style of fighting; he realizes that most adversaries hesitate before they pull the trigger, and because of this fact he always pulls the trigger first without pausing to consider who he may be shooting or why. His mentality allows him to live a long, fulfilling life, as he always brings down his enemies before they can bring him down. At one point in the film, he even tells Gillom, “I’ve found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren’t willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger; I won’t.”
The characters in this film are portrayed by very talented actors; they are dynamic and believable and show varying personalities. The main character, J. B. Books, is a smart, egotistic Western shootist who is dying to a cancer. Even in his last days, he barely accepts help from anyone as his ego will not let him. He can also be quite mean or rude sometimes. When a man who petitions John to let him right an exaggerated account of his entire life stops by Bond and Gillom Roger’s house, the place where John Books is renting a room, Books pulls out a gun, forces the man to the front porch of the house, and literally kicks him out warning him to never return. This fact reveals another side of the calm, methodical Books; he can also be a savage and violent man, but he will always do what he has to do to survive-that is his defining characteristic. The teenage son of Bond Rogers, Books’ landlady, Gillom, acquaints himself with John Books throughout the film. He looks up to Books as a kind of hero or role model. Gillom’s personality can be likened to that of a sheep-he doesn’t try to be a leader himself but rather prefers the security of another individual to look up to. He, just like Books, also has a dark side to him. He is sneaky and conniving, and this characteristic shows at certain times, such as the point when Gillom overhears a conversation with Books and the Marshall, or the time when he manages to get three of Books’ enemies to unknowingly get together at the same place at the same time in order to fight Books.
The point of view in this film is third person limited. A film like this obviously should center on J. B. Books, played by John Wayne, as this was his last acting role in a film and his last time playing John Books. Almost every scene in the movie contains Books in some way or form. There are some minor exceptions to this obviously; for example, Books is not present when Gillom goes to see Moses, the town blacksmith, to make an offer on Books’ horse unbeknownst to him. Instances like this create dramatic irony, as things that concern Books are happening behind his back and only the audience knows that they will affect him somehow later. The camera creates point of view mostly through medium shots that usually keep most of the characters in view. Some long shots are used to show characters getting further and further away from a certain point, but that’s about the only deviation from the norm. At some points in dialogue, the camera zooms a little closer to the characters faces than usual in order to show emotion, but this doesn’t happen nearly as much as one would think in such a dramatic film. Overall, however, the camera angles and the scenes portrayed by the camera are well thought out and create for a great Western film.
by Nick Sichau
Film Comparison:
In the film The Shootist, directed by Don Siegel, has many strong points that some films released today have as well. One of these films would be The Gran Torino, I had chosen this film because of many reasons. One of them being story, the story in some way are alike. They both have characters that die in the end, they both are like the old and new versions of each other because of the time each film was set in. And even the antagonists are somewhat similar because they both want something from the protagonist.
Another thing these films have in common is character. They both have and old man whos going to die soon and a young man who becomes a man at the end. The films are different because in The Gran Torino Clint Eastwood doesn't kill anyone but in The Shootist John Wayne does kill people. Both actors were very famous cowboys and the films they were portrayed in were basically their last films. The boys were also the same because they both become a real man at the end when the protagonist die.
Both films had strong relationships. John had strong feelings for Bond and fell in love with her. However Clint had a different kind of love for Thao's sister. Clint loved her like a daughter and he respected her. The feelings both characters had made them look softer than what they actually appeared on the outside. Both the boys also looked up to both the protagonist and looked at them like they were legends, and they gave them their utmost respect.
by Richie Gov
Nosferatu (Werner Herzog, 1979)
Summary/Questions/Facts:
Nosferatu starts with Jonathan who is an estate agent. He is sent to Transylvania to sell property to Count Dracula in Varna where Jonathan lives. When Jonathan arrives at the inn before reaching the castle gypsies warn him that the castle is cursed and who ever enters the castle will never leave. Jonathan does not believe them. Later that morning nobody will take him up the mountain so he walks to the castle. Upon his arrival he is greeted by Nosferatu. While they are having dinner and reading over the papers, Jonathan cuts himself cutting a loaf of bread. Nosferatu attacks him feeding off of him. That night they sign the papers. The coffins were filled with rats and soil to prepare for a voyage . Later that day Jonathan sees Nosferatu sleeping in his coffin. While he is sleeping he is placed on a ship to Varna. Jonathan rides to his homeland to save Lucy his wife from Nosferatu. Nosferatu wakes up on the ship and kills all the crew members. The ship arrives and everyone is dead and Nosferatu is back in his coffin. Nosferatu kills Lucy and stays up to late and is killed by the morning light. Since Nosferatu bit Jonathan he becomes the next vampire.
1. There was not enough grey rats so they dyed white ones
2. The slow motion effect did not work so they borrowed the shot from a documentary
3. They hired Roland Topor as Renfield after they saw him on a T.V. show
4. Klaus Kinski spent four hours on makeup
5. They had a spinoff to Nosferatu called Shadow of a Vampire which was the perspective of the director
6. Nosferatu was originally going to be a Dracula movie but because of copyright they changed it to Nosferatu
7. The rats are brought over to cause the plague
8. There was twice as many people who filmed the remake then the original
9. The behavioral biologist Martin Maarten‘t Hart left for animal cruelty
10. Lucy name in the original novel was Mina
by Joseph Lorusso
Film Review:
In the film, Nosferatu directed by Werner Harzog, this film I thought was shown to be a poorly planned out movies. In was shown to probably be the cheesiest scary movie anyone has ever directed. As a result, there were a lot of messed up scenes in the movie that did not make the movie scary on how it was presented in the first place. It was surprising to see that the director had directed this movie after he directed his suspenseful movie Sunrise.
In the beginning, the movie was presented to be the typical scary movie, making the character force himself to go to the antagonist. However, when arriving to the castle in the movie, one scene had been replicated from the original movie itself which made the movie go along perfectly fine. However, after that scene a lot of things began to change. The acting was shown to be overly dramatic and story plot began to become very confusing. There were some unneeded scenes in the movie that had made the audience lose track because the point of the movie was lost. It was not more towards the end where the point of the movie had come back and the resolution was solved living a cliff hanger making the protagonist become the new vampire. As a result, instead of making the movie more suspenseful and scary, it made the movie more of a comedy to some people. Overall, the movie was just shown to be a poorly played movie because the acting was overly dramatic and the point was lost half way through the movie.
by Esteban Almanza
Film Elements:
In the beginning of this horrific film, it starts off with close-up shots of desiccated dead bodies that introduces some fear in the film to the audience. The first scene that shows the bat flying in slow motion, creates a jolt right through you when you suddenly hear a scream coming from the film's protagonist, Lucy Harker, waking up from a nightmare. Sudden movements that make loud sounds would most likely make you want to jump out of your seat or at least expect the unexpected. For instance, in the scene where Jonathon Harker accidentally cuts himself with a knife, which you can see the fake blood on his hand, Nosferatu was desperately thirsty for his blood by the look of hunger in his face and that he wanted to instantly drink his blood. As a result, he pushed Harker's chair out of the way creating a sudden loud, BANG! sound that results in making you jump a bit. However, the second time the bat scene appeared, it wasn't much as a surprise as the first time when Lucy screams and is then worried about her husband gone to visit Count Dracula. Although the sounds in the film would make you want to hold tight onto your chairs, it may also create the tension between the characters during that particular scene. For example, the scene where Jonathon is in the tavern and says that he is going to Count Dracula's castle and simultaneously a woman drops and breaks a glass cup on the floor causing the whole place to become tense-yet silent. Overall, the film's sound impacts the audience's emotions and predictions on what may happen next.
Color wise, the dull weather did not really capture the character's and setting clearly, yet the castle of Nosferatu was a perfect setting for a horror film to take place. The darkness captures the evilness surrounding the castle and, especially, Nosferatu himself. Nosferatu's appearance of sharp nails and teeth, pale skin, and tall ears makes it obvious that he is the antagonist of the movie.
Fortunately, the camera's angles successfully obtained all the drama, horror, and the plot of the story. We get to see the inside scoop of the actions Jonathon does exploring the castle to Nosferatu making his evil plan work to spread a plague in Germany from long shots of what the characters are doing from a far view and that the medium shots get the conversations well with the characters' facial expressions. The dramatic angles where the camera makes it look like someone is following a character like Jonathon in the castle, adds suspense and curiosity to what will happen next and fear to what will happen to the character being "followed" by the camera. Also, you could tell that they used fast motion to make the sky change its appearance from day to night during Jonathon's journey to Nosferatu's mysterious home to make the audience infer that his journey was not an easy task to do.
The acting of the film was quite too exaggerated and was well-slow to the point where action takes place when Nosferatu was going to feed on his victims like Jonathon and Lucy Harker. Plus, when Nosferatu comes to feed on his victims, both Jonathon and Lucy dramatically and awkwardly stayed from where they were until Nosferatu finally attacks them. Probably horror films at that time didn't want to take the chance on being gory, bloody, and fast-paced. For the main part, dramatic irony takes place when we know something that a character doesn't like when we know that Lucy will be sacrificing her life to kill Nosferatu, while Van Helping did not believe Lucy's solution on stopping Nosferatu's evilness and Jonathon being useless by the corner.
Even though the movie was in German and that we couldn't really concentrate with the English subtitles, it was worth watching with all the sound, images, and all the other elements of the film. This Nosferatu remake has all the elements of what a horror film has today.
by Marianne Buena
Film Comparison:
This weeks film, Nosferatu is widely known to have similarities to the story of Count Dracula. Although we did not watch the original film, it is speculated that Nosferatu the vampire was in fact so similar to Count Dracula, that the ending scene in which Nosferatu dies from exposure to the sun, was added to avoid a law suit. The version of Nosferatu that we focused on however, did stay true to the original storyline. This film mimicked the gothic style of other horror films of that period such as Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, and The Wolfman. The storyline was extremely formulaic. A monster who is in some way different that his victims, runs unstopped and unchecked through a society, killing and maiming as they please. Then, as people begin to catch on, the monster or villain is eventually destroyed.
The story of Nosferatu however, bears a strong similarity to Dracula. The storylines are almost identical. A vampire calls a realtor to his castle, next the vampire makes an attempt at feeding from this man's blood. Then, the vampire travels to the realtors town to search for other victims. At this point the stories begin to differ, rather than remaining undetected, Dracula is almost immediately an object of suspicion among men in the town such as Van Helsing. Dracula then falls in love with his next chosen victim, he is chased back to his castle where Van Helsing kills him by staking his heart. The name Van Helsing is used in both films, but portray different characters, Nosferatu's Van Helsing played a pastor in a church, while Dracula's Van Helsing was a scientist. Obviously two different viewpoints.
Nosferatu starts with Jonathan who is an estate agent. He is sent to Transylvania to sell property to Count Dracula in Varna where Jonathan lives. When Jonathan arrives at the inn before reaching the castle gypsies warn him that the castle is cursed and who ever enters the castle will never leave. Jonathan does not believe them. Later that morning nobody will take him up the mountain so he walks to the castle. Upon his arrival he is greeted by Nosferatu. While they are having dinner and reading over the papers, Jonathan cuts himself cutting a loaf of bread. Nosferatu attacks him feeding off of him. That night they sign the papers. The coffins were filled with rats and soil to prepare for a voyage . Later that day Jonathan sees Nosferatu sleeping in his coffin. While he is sleeping he is placed on a ship to Varna. Jonathan rides to his homeland to save Lucy his wife from Nosferatu. Nosferatu wakes up on the ship and kills all the crew members. The ship arrives and everyone is dead and Nosferatu is back in his coffin. Nosferatu kills Lucy and stays up to late and is killed by the morning light. Since Nosferatu bit Jonathan he becomes the next vampire.
1. There was not enough grey rats so they dyed white ones
2. The slow motion effect did not work so they borrowed the shot from a documentary
3. They hired Roland Topor as Renfield after they saw him on a T.V. show
4. Klaus Kinski spent four hours on makeup
5. They had a spinoff to Nosferatu called Shadow of a Vampire which was the perspective of the director
6. Nosferatu was originally going to be a Dracula movie but because of copyright they changed it to Nosferatu
7. The rats are brought over to cause the plague
8. There was twice as many people who filmed the remake then the original
9. The behavioral biologist Martin Maarten‘t Hart left for animal cruelty
10. Lucy name in the original novel was Mina
by Joseph Lorusso
Film Review:
In the film, Nosferatu directed by Werner Harzog, this film I thought was shown to be a poorly planned out movies. In was shown to probably be the cheesiest scary movie anyone has ever directed. As a result, there were a lot of messed up scenes in the movie that did not make the movie scary on how it was presented in the first place. It was surprising to see that the director had directed this movie after he directed his suspenseful movie Sunrise.
In the beginning, the movie was presented to be the typical scary movie, making the character force himself to go to the antagonist. However, when arriving to the castle in the movie, one scene had been replicated from the original movie itself which made the movie go along perfectly fine. However, after that scene a lot of things began to change. The acting was shown to be overly dramatic and story plot began to become very confusing. There were some unneeded scenes in the movie that had made the audience lose track because the point of the movie was lost. It was not more towards the end where the point of the movie had come back and the resolution was solved living a cliff hanger making the protagonist become the new vampire. As a result, instead of making the movie more suspenseful and scary, it made the movie more of a comedy to some people. Overall, the movie was just shown to be a poorly played movie because the acting was overly dramatic and the point was lost half way through the movie.
by Esteban Almanza
Film Elements:
In the beginning of this horrific film, it starts off with close-up shots of desiccated dead bodies that introduces some fear in the film to the audience. The first scene that shows the bat flying in slow motion, creates a jolt right through you when you suddenly hear a scream coming from the film's protagonist, Lucy Harker, waking up from a nightmare. Sudden movements that make loud sounds would most likely make you want to jump out of your seat or at least expect the unexpected. For instance, in the scene where Jonathon Harker accidentally cuts himself with a knife, which you can see the fake blood on his hand, Nosferatu was desperately thirsty for his blood by the look of hunger in his face and that he wanted to instantly drink his blood. As a result, he pushed Harker's chair out of the way creating a sudden loud, BANG! sound that results in making you jump a bit. However, the second time the bat scene appeared, it wasn't much as a surprise as the first time when Lucy screams and is then worried about her husband gone to visit Count Dracula. Although the sounds in the film would make you want to hold tight onto your chairs, it may also create the tension between the characters during that particular scene. For example, the scene where Jonathon is in the tavern and says that he is going to Count Dracula's castle and simultaneously a woman drops and breaks a glass cup on the floor causing the whole place to become tense-yet silent. Overall, the film's sound impacts the audience's emotions and predictions on what may happen next.
Color wise, the dull weather did not really capture the character's and setting clearly, yet the castle of Nosferatu was a perfect setting for a horror film to take place. The darkness captures the evilness surrounding the castle and, especially, Nosferatu himself. Nosferatu's appearance of sharp nails and teeth, pale skin, and tall ears makes it obvious that he is the antagonist of the movie.
Fortunately, the camera's angles successfully obtained all the drama, horror, and the plot of the story. We get to see the inside scoop of the actions Jonathon does exploring the castle to Nosferatu making his evil plan work to spread a plague in Germany from long shots of what the characters are doing from a far view and that the medium shots get the conversations well with the characters' facial expressions. The dramatic angles where the camera makes it look like someone is following a character like Jonathon in the castle, adds suspense and curiosity to what will happen next and fear to what will happen to the character being "followed" by the camera. Also, you could tell that they used fast motion to make the sky change its appearance from day to night during Jonathon's journey to Nosferatu's mysterious home to make the audience infer that his journey was not an easy task to do.
The acting of the film was quite too exaggerated and was well-slow to the point where action takes place when Nosferatu was going to feed on his victims like Jonathon and Lucy Harker. Plus, when Nosferatu comes to feed on his victims, both Jonathon and Lucy dramatically and awkwardly stayed from where they were until Nosferatu finally attacks them. Probably horror films at that time didn't want to take the chance on being gory, bloody, and fast-paced. For the main part, dramatic irony takes place when we know something that a character doesn't like when we know that Lucy will be sacrificing her life to kill Nosferatu, while Van Helping did not believe Lucy's solution on stopping Nosferatu's evilness and Jonathon being useless by the corner.
Even though the movie was in German and that we couldn't really concentrate with the English subtitles, it was worth watching with all the sound, images, and all the other elements of the film. This Nosferatu remake has all the elements of what a horror film has today.
by Marianne Buena
Film Comparison:
This weeks film, Nosferatu is widely known to have similarities to the story of Count Dracula. Although we did not watch the original film, it is speculated that Nosferatu the vampire was in fact so similar to Count Dracula, that the ending scene in which Nosferatu dies from exposure to the sun, was added to avoid a law suit. The version of Nosferatu that we focused on however, did stay true to the original storyline. This film mimicked the gothic style of other horror films of that period such as Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, and The Wolfman. The storyline was extremely formulaic. A monster who is in some way different that his victims, runs unstopped and unchecked through a society, killing and maiming as they please. Then, as people begin to catch on, the monster or villain is eventually destroyed.
The story of Nosferatu however, bears a strong similarity to Dracula. The storylines are almost identical. A vampire calls a realtor to his castle, next the vampire makes an attempt at feeding from this man's blood. Then, the vampire travels to the realtors town to search for other victims. At this point the stories begin to differ, rather than remaining undetected, Dracula is almost immediately an object of suspicion among men in the town such as Van Helsing. Dracula then falls in love with his next chosen victim, he is chased back to his castle where Van Helsing kills him by staking his heart. The name Van Helsing is used in both films, but portray different characters, Nosferatu's Van Helsing played a pastor in a church, while Dracula's Van Helsing was a scientist. Obviously two different viewpoints.
The Purple Rose of Cairo (Woody Allen, 1985)
Summary/Questions:
The movie “The Purple Rose of Cairo” shows a middle-aged woman named Cecilia is in an abusive marriage. She is struggling with her new job at the café. She only finds happiness in going to the local movie theater and watching movies. The movie that mainly fancies her peach is called “The Purple Rose of Cairo’’. During that time as she was watching it she would either be smiling or crying. On about her 3rd – 4th time seeing the movie the main character Tom Baxter jumps off the screen and confesses his love for her. When this happened they both ran out of the movie theater and ran to an abandoned amusement park. She eventually has to return home and she leaves him at the park. The next day the actual actor comes to town trying to find the escaped movie character. He runs into Cecilia and asked her if she had seen his character. But as the are looking for tom they fall in love Cecilia eventually has to choose and she picks the actual person they force Tom to go back on screen and after they do that the real person flies back to Hollywood and leaves Cecilia all by herself.
Questions
1) How many times did Cecilia see the movie?
2) What food did she give Tom Baxter?
3) Where did they go to hide?
4) What did all the characters in the screen start doing?
5) What movie studio does the manager of the theater call?
6) What was the explorer’s name?
7) In the end who does Cecilia choose?
8) Dose the actual actor really love her?
9) Why did the actor just leave her?
10) How does the movie end?
by Robert Giles
Film Review:
The film, The Purple Rose of Cairo, shows a great display of theatrics as well as a good plot line. In my opinion, the film was a good film for its time. Although it had a few minor flaws, they are type of flaws that any critic could overlook due to its overwhelming attributes. As described, the quality of display is shown throughout the film as when the second protagonist jumped off screen. This shows the special effects that were used in earlier era of film. This technique was a personal favorite of mine because it shows the unique qualities of the film in such a short time span with great technique. The acting quality in each character was done very well, considering the time difference for which the actors had to play. The plot line shows the basic story arc, which shows beginning, middle, climax, and resolution. Each part was extremely well portrayed and had great detail.
Another aspect of the film is character development. Every character developed in their own way, in particular, the climax scenes. For example, when Cecilia was confronted with a decision of choosing reality or fantasy, it showed her true nature and what her true desires were. In another instance, when Gil Shepherd made his promise to Cecilia, he broke his promise choosing career over happiness. The final example was in the scene where we the viewer see Tom Baxters innocent nature as he is confronted be the ladies of the evening and is to naïve to understand their advances. As a whole I think the movie was a good movie and it conveyed its message properly and was very entertaining at the same time.
by Darius Muir
Film Analysis of Image and Sound:
The Purple Rose of Cairo, written by Woody Allen, is a film about a movie character who comes off the movie screen into real life. The quality of the image in this film is good for its time. When main character Tom Baxter switches from the film to real life he changes from black and white into color, done very well by film editor Susan E. Morse. Image is very important because it can help or hurt movie. Some scenes would be bright or dark when a scene is taken place outside or inside. For example, when Tom first comes out of the movie screen and they were in the movie theater the lighting was darker with a lot of shadows so it looked like they were really in a movie theater.
Throughout the film, there weren’t really any major sound effects, besides just normal city noises. The quality of the sound throughout the movie was clear and easy to understand and to hear. There was always some kind of noise whether it was dialogue or background noise but it was never too much.
By Elizabeth Tait
Film Analysis of Cinematography, Mise-en-Scene, and Editing:
In the film The Purple Rose of Cairo, directed by Woody Allen, Allen creates the perfect arrangement of characters and props for the movie. By including a well-developed mise-en-scene it allows the audience to have a more enjoyable picture. In the scene where all of the actors in the movie are angry that one of their actors are missing, props such as a piano and a couch are used to fit all of the actors in the shot. By doing this it incorporates an appealing background, yet it also proves it is not too crowded because everybody is able to fit into the shot.
In The Purple Rose of Cairo cinematography is the use of special effects to achieve the shot the director wants. In the scene where Cecilia is in the movie theater the lights are placed delicately so as to see her facial expression but not too bright that the scene becomes unrealistic. The director also chose to shoot this shot from a side angle so as to reveal more of the scene behind Cecilia.
The editing in the film is done very well because scenes are able to flow effortlessly together. The audience does not have to suffer choppy transitions during the movie. The director also made a wise decision in not extending the scenes to a lengthy period of time. The movie was able to convey its meaning and tell a story in just the right amount of time.
by Ashley Simpson
Literary Analysis of Point of View, Character, and Theme:
The Purple Rose of Cairo utilized point of view in a way that allowed the film to tell multiple stories at the same time to its audience. The film did not have a narrator or a particular character that caused the film to remain stagnate on a character. Instead the film jumped around several times following different characters throughout the day such as Cecelia, Tom Baxter, and Gil Shepard. Through this method more of each character is revealed and the audience is able to see the world in the film as a whole due to the round characters the method is able to show.
The character of Tom Baxter represents a unique type of character that is not seen in a large majority of films. Tom is a character in a movie with in the movie that is able to leave his film and walk around in the “normal” world. However, since he has no experience in this real world, he thinks that things that traditionally happen in movies happens in everyday life such as transitions and fading to black. By having a character that does not understand the mechanics of the real world the audience is captivated when he is on screen because they are curious to see how he will respond to each new situation that he is presented with.
While the film has a comedic presence the underlying theme presents the audience with a harsh look at reality. Throughout the film the audience observes the tragedy that is Cecilia’s life and the escape that she finds through the factious characters in cinema. Things start to brighten up in her life when she falls in love with not only Tom but also Gil. However, in the end her issues are solved when she is lead to believe that her and Gil will get to be together. Except, this is when the film reveals, things do not end well in life like they do on the big screen. In the final scene we see that Gil has lied to Cecilia and that she is right back where she started.
by Ryan Thompson
Literary Element Analysis of Symbolism, Story, and Genre:
The Purple Rose of Cairo has a very interesting and emotional story. The basic premise is what happens when our dreams become our reality but with a twist of romance in it. The film is set in New Jersey during the Great Depression and follows the main character Celica. She works at a diner and comes home to her abusive husband. To escape from this reality she goes to her local cinema to watch The Purple Rose of Cairo. After watching it multiples in one day the main character from the movie exits the screen and comes into reality. He then pronounces his love for her and they run away together. The news soon spreads and the actor of the character is then forced to get his character back on the screen. He accidently meets Cecilia and then convinces her to meet with his character (Tom Baxter). Gil tries to convince Tom to go back on the screen but he says he will not because he loves Cecilia. Gil then falls in love with Cecilia and at the climax she chooses Gil because he is actually real unlike tom, so tom then rejoins the movie again. Gil says to Cecilia to meet him outside the movie theater but he then leaves her, it is obvious that he is very conflicted about this choice. The genre I believe this belongs to is romance due to the fact it does tell the tale of two lovers and their adventure together. It is unlike many movies of its genre due to the fact it does not have a happy ending and the main character is thrown into her desperate situation once again. Its grounded into reality a lot more it companion movies it shows how your prince charming isn’t always the selfless person you expect him to be. There greatest symbolism in the movie is that of Tom Baxter and Gil. Tom Baxter symbolizes the eternal hope that we all have that no matter where we are in life things will always get better and that dreams do become a reality. While on the opposite end of the spectrum Gil symbolism cold harsh reality and that sometimes things aren’t meant to be no matter how much you perceive.
by Chris Emmett
The movie “The Purple Rose of Cairo” shows a middle-aged woman named Cecilia is in an abusive marriage. She is struggling with her new job at the café. She only finds happiness in going to the local movie theater and watching movies. The movie that mainly fancies her peach is called “The Purple Rose of Cairo’’. During that time as she was watching it she would either be smiling or crying. On about her 3rd – 4th time seeing the movie the main character Tom Baxter jumps off the screen and confesses his love for her. When this happened they both ran out of the movie theater and ran to an abandoned amusement park. She eventually has to return home and she leaves him at the park. The next day the actual actor comes to town trying to find the escaped movie character. He runs into Cecilia and asked her if she had seen his character. But as the are looking for tom they fall in love Cecilia eventually has to choose and she picks the actual person they force Tom to go back on screen and after they do that the real person flies back to Hollywood and leaves Cecilia all by herself.
Questions
1) How many times did Cecilia see the movie?
2) What food did she give Tom Baxter?
3) Where did they go to hide?
4) What did all the characters in the screen start doing?
5) What movie studio does the manager of the theater call?
6) What was the explorer’s name?
7) In the end who does Cecilia choose?
8) Dose the actual actor really love her?
9) Why did the actor just leave her?
10) How does the movie end?
by Robert Giles
Film Review:
The film, The Purple Rose of Cairo, shows a great display of theatrics as well as a good plot line. In my opinion, the film was a good film for its time. Although it had a few minor flaws, they are type of flaws that any critic could overlook due to its overwhelming attributes. As described, the quality of display is shown throughout the film as when the second protagonist jumped off screen. This shows the special effects that were used in earlier era of film. This technique was a personal favorite of mine because it shows the unique qualities of the film in such a short time span with great technique. The acting quality in each character was done very well, considering the time difference for which the actors had to play. The plot line shows the basic story arc, which shows beginning, middle, climax, and resolution. Each part was extremely well portrayed and had great detail.
Another aspect of the film is character development. Every character developed in their own way, in particular, the climax scenes. For example, when Cecilia was confronted with a decision of choosing reality or fantasy, it showed her true nature and what her true desires were. In another instance, when Gil Shepherd made his promise to Cecilia, he broke his promise choosing career over happiness. The final example was in the scene where we the viewer see Tom Baxters innocent nature as he is confronted be the ladies of the evening and is to naïve to understand their advances. As a whole I think the movie was a good movie and it conveyed its message properly and was very entertaining at the same time.
by Darius Muir
Film Analysis of Image and Sound:
The Purple Rose of Cairo, written by Woody Allen, is a film about a movie character who comes off the movie screen into real life. The quality of the image in this film is good for its time. When main character Tom Baxter switches from the film to real life he changes from black and white into color, done very well by film editor Susan E. Morse. Image is very important because it can help or hurt movie. Some scenes would be bright or dark when a scene is taken place outside or inside. For example, when Tom first comes out of the movie screen and they were in the movie theater the lighting was darker with a lot of shadows so it looked like they were really in a movie theater.
Throughout the film, there weren’t really any major sound effects, besides just normal city noises. The quality of the sound throughout the movie was clear and easy to understand and to hear. There was always some kind of noise whether it was dialogue or background noise but it was never too much.
By Elizabeth Tait
Film Analysis of Cinematography, Mise-en-Scene, and Editing:
In the film The Purple Rose of Cairo, directed by Woody Allen, Allen creates the perfect arrangement of characters and props for the movie. By including a well-developed mise-en-scene it allows the audience to have a more enjoyable picture. In the scene where all of the actors in the movie are angry that one of their actors are missing, props such as a piano and a couch are used to fit all of the actors in the shot. By doing this it incorporates an appealing background, yet it also proves it is not too crowded because everybody is able to fit into the shot.
In The Purple Rose of Cairo cinematography is the use of special effects to achieve the shot the director wants. In the scene where Cecilia is in the movie theater the lights are placed delicately so as to see her facial expression but not too bright that the scene becomes unrealistic. The director also chose to shoot this shot from a side angle so as to reveal more of the scene behind Cecilia.
The editing in the film is done very well because scenes are able to flow effortlessly together. The audience does not have to suffer choppy transitions during the movie. The director also made a wise decision in not extending the scenes to a lengthy period of time. The movie was able to convey its meaning and tell a story in just the right amount of time.
by Ashley Simpson
Literary Analysis of Point of View, Character, and Theme:
The Purple Rose of Cairo utilized point of view in a way that allowed the film to tell multiple stories at the same time to its audience. The film did not have a narrator or a particular character that caused the film to remain stagnate on a character. Instead the film jumped around several times following different characters throughout the day such as Cecelia, Tom Baxter, and Gil Shepard. Through this method more of each character is revealed and the audience is able to see the world in the film as a whole due to the round characters the method is able to show.
The character of Tom Baxter represents a unique type of character that is not seen in a large majority of films. Tom is a character in a movie with in the movie that is able to leave his film and walk around in the “normal” world. However, since he has no experience in this real world, he thinks that things that traditionally happen in movies happens in everyday life such as transitions and fading to black. By having a character that does not understand the mechanics of the real world the audience is captivated when he is on screen because they are curious to see how he will respond to each new situation that he is presented with.
While the film has a comedic presence the underlying theme presents the audience with a harsh look at reality. Throughout the film the audience observes the tragedy that is Cecilia’s life and the escape that she finds through the factious characters in cinema. Things start to brighten up in her life when she falls in love with not only Tom but also Gil. However, in the end her issues are solved when she is lead to believe that her and Gil will get to be together. Except, this is when the film reveals, things do not end well in life like they do on the big screen. In the final scene we see that Gil has lied to Cecilia and that she is right back where she started.
by Ryan Thompson
Literary Element Analysis of Symbolism, Story, and Genre:
The Purple Rose of Cairo has a very interesting and emotional story. The basic premise is what happens when our dreams become our reality but with a twist of romance in it. The film is set in New Jersey during the Great Depression and follows the main character Celica. She works at a diner and comes home to her abusive husband. To escape from this reality she goes to her local cinema to watch The Purple Rose of Cairo. After watching it multiples in one day the main character from the movie exits the screen and comes into reality. He then pronounces his love for her and they run away together. The news soon spreads and the actor of the character is then forced to get his character back on the screen. He accidently meets Cecilia and then convinces her to meet with his character (Tom Baxter). Gil tries to convince Tom to go back on the screen but he says he will not because he loves Cecilia. Gil then falls in love with Cecilia and at the climax she chooses Gil because he is actually real unlike tom, so tom then rejoins the movie again. Gil says to Cecilia to meet him outside the movie theater but he then leaves her, it is obvious that he is very conflicted about this choice. The genre I believe this belongs to is romance due to the fact it does tell the tale of two lovers and their adventure together. It is unlike many movies of its genre due to the fact it does not have a happy ending and the main character is thrown into her desperate situation once again. Its grounded into reality a lot more it companion movies it shows how your prince charming isn’t always the selfless person you expect him to be. There greatest symbolism in the movie is that of Tom Baxter and Gil. Tom Baxter symbolizes the eternal hope that we all have that no matter where we are in life things will always get better and that dreams do become a reality. While on the opposite end of the spectrum Gil symbolism cold harsh reality and that sometimes things aren’t meant to be no matter how much you perceive.
by Chris Emmett