Abbas Kiarostami is a director that aims to portray life as art, to connect life to nature and examine how insignificant human actions and lives are when compared to the world around us. His pastoral approach is one that not adds beauty to his films but also allows the viewer to personally see the connection between nature and the individual. Through the Olive Trees, takes place right after the 1990 Manjil-Rudbar earthquake, which killed almost 40,000 people, left 500,000 homeless and many without any knowledge of whether their loved ones were alive or dead. Abbas choice to portray this event through his film deals largely with his deep connection to nature, as well as trauma and repetition. Abbas has a track record of incorporating the repetition of past traumas and loss through his films, which I believe is also present in Through the Olive Trees. Mohammed Ali Keshavaz, who plays the director, is shown repeatedly asking the women in the film their address. Even though almost all of them have lost their homes and no longer have address’. He also makes them name the people they’ve lost in the earthquake. The director believes having them talk about their losses will force them to recover, and so he refuses to let them ignore what has happened.

Another interesting dynamic to this film is Abbas choice to have a film within a film. Initially I thought of it to be an interesting twist on the narrative but after analyzing the film more closely I’ve come to see it, as Abbas desire to escape reality. Abbas choice to intertwine reality and fiction appears to be his way of creating a means to escape the issues occurring without fully losing reality. Abbas choice to create a film-within-a-film also creates slight tension between that of the actual film. There are times when we are following one developing narrative and then all of a sudden we’ll be presented with information from the past. This switch between past and present and film and film-within-film at times had me questioning what was reality and what was fiction. Which is what I believe Abbas was trying to create through this back and forth pattern.

One part of this film that particularly resonated with me was that of the ‘male gaze’. As a female I found it interesting to see the ways in which Tahareh and the other young women in the film were featured. There were never any shots of them looking into the camera or at the male actors. Their gaze was often hidden or they were shown not returning the gaze of others. This component of the film was what conveyed the distinct cultural differences in Through the Olive Trees and other films we’ve watched. In many other films the camera has a way of sexualizing women, of making them into objects of visual pleasure instead of characters of value. However, Through the Olive Trees was a film that instead completely dismissed the female gaze.  Which not only presented cultural value but also showcased the control of censorship in Iranian cinema.

Wet Hot American Summer came out in 2001 but the titular hot summer occurs in 1981. It’s the last day of camp and hijinks ensue among the teenage camp counselors. The film is rated R for adult humor, language, and sexual content. It was a commercial flop and did not receive favorable reviews. Most notably, film critic Roger Ebert gave the film one star. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 31% based on 65 reviews and Metacritic gives the film a rating of 42% based on 24 reviews from critics.

However, this film did receive a significant cult following after its release and served as a stepping stone for the then mostly unknown cast to become big name stars in comedy and other film genres. Some of these stars include, Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks, Bradley Cooper, and Amy Poehler. This film breaks through the typical bubble of financial failure and finds success in its own way through the appeal of nostalgia and sketch comedy, and the power of word-of-mouth. It is hilarious. It’s one of those films that you’re not sure why it’s funny, but it is.

WHAS was directed by David Wain who co-wrote and co-produced it with Michael Showalter. This original screenplay was based off of the experiences Wain had while attending a Jewish summer camp in Maine, and Showalter had while attending a summer camp in Massachusetts. The film is also a spoof of, and homage to other films in the 70s and 80s summer camp genre such as Meatballs and Little Darlings, as well as John Hughes movies like Sixteen Candles, and big ensemble films like Animal House.

The film takes place over 1 day in Waterville, Maine, but the shooting lasted for 28 days in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. They had an indie budget of $1.8 million, so the camp facilities had to be used as set pieces as well as accommodations for the cast and crew. Many of the cast members agreed that the entire experience really felt like being at a summer camp with the main difference being that they were adults and indulged in adult behaviors. There was a lot of smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. Wain had a lot of work to do to keep everyone happy, but his biggest issue during production was the heavy rain.

It rained for 25 out of the 28 shooting days. The rain and low temperatures become a logistical nightmare for Wain and crew. Luckily rain doesn’t show up on camera unless the crew specifically lights for it, so they had no choice but to shoot in the rain. In the film it looks sunny and warm but it was actually cold, and the cast had to wear many layers of clothing unless they were on screen. If they were in a shot then they had to be wearing summer clothes, like shorts or bikinis. Some scenes were changed entirely because it was just raining too hard.

When reality hit that it would be raining every day, the shot list was cut down. They added even more absurdist humor to an already absurd film so when things happened that didn’t make sense, it looked purposeful. Examples of this include making one cast member walk off the edge of a pier because they needed him to disappear before the next scene. In another scene, a character hands a trophy he is holding off camera and it just disappears. There was a complete disregard for trying to figure out logical solutions because the crew was just trying to get their film made. In one scene, some of the characters go into town, but the filmmakers didn’t have permits or crowd control. Wain just told everyone they had to run around to different places and get the shots as quickly as possible before they were kicked out.

The kids in Wet Hot American Summer are a mix of professional child actors, Camp Towanda attendees, and local extras. The number of local kids started to dwindle after their parents realized how filthy the film was. It could be argued that the cast and crew for this film were just a bunch of kids themselves. Despite the rain, mud, bugs, and freezing temperatures, everyone took advantage of the camp-like experience and just had fun with their friends. The extreme bonding and inside jokes that formed gave the cast and crew hope that audiences would love watching their film as much as they loved making it.

The film had little to no promotion, having premiered at Sundance only days after completion. The film was promoted with a budget of $5 million in order to attract more distributers. The film was panned by critics for its loose, almost non-existent structure, its curious obsession with a specific sub-genre of comedies, and for just not being funny.

When the film was released on DVD on January 15 2002, things started looking up for WHAS despite its box office and critical failure. Wain mentions on his own website that midnight screenings began in New York and other cities in August 2003 with more increasing every summer. Focus Features’ DVD and movie right revenues were boosted as WHAS gained a significant cult following.

Looking back at WHAS’ fight against money, rain, and time, it could be deemed successful just for getting finished. Success could be also argued for the cast and crew who achieved their goal of sticking with their vision. They made the movie that they wanted to make. They wrote what they found funny and didn’t try to cater to an audience demanding a certain type of comedy. As for the loose structure of the film, it is revealed to the viewer from the very beginning, thus clueing the viewer in on how they should be watching the film. A lack of narrative structure is a post-modern idea and it is used in literature all the time and helps readers understand how they should be reading the language. When a unique narrative structure is used in film, in this case WHAS, it lets the audience know that it’s purposeful and adds to the comedic effect. Unfortunately, originality isn’t always welcomed in the film industry.

Wet Hot American Summer is proof that a film can jump through all the hoops of the industry that try to keep it from getting made or distributed, and still be successful in the eyes of the people who fought to make it and the people who love to watch it.

Jake Turner
Blog post 3
May 22, 2014

The Watermelon Woman is an indie film from the queer cinema movement. Even with it’s less than perfect acting and low budget it is able to tell the writers story of self-reflection. At the end of the movie we learn that the Watermelon Woman is actually completely fictional. The Watermelon Woman is just a vessel of self-reflection for the writer/director, Cheryl Dunye. She uses this film to express her feelings towards the lack of African American lesbian presence in the film industry. It’s clear that there are no famous African American lesbian’s in film at the time from the scene of Cheryl doing research at the library and coming up empty handed. This large reference library does not have one book on the topic showing its insignificance at the time.
I interpreted the Watermelon Woman as Cheryl herself and her difficulties in the film world being an African American lesbian. This is evident in the scenes of Cheryl reciting what I assumed to be said from ‘The Watermelon Woman’. An example of this can be found towards the end of the movie from 1:13:00-1:13:10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_BU_c5TnO4). She is able to recite the lines word for word with perfect timing without looking at the real movie. I believe Tamara may be a representation of a disapproving male figure in her life. Someone had brought up during discussion that Tamara seems to be very masculine in her actions, which I came to find myself agreeing with. She disapproves of Cheryl’s idea for the movie throughout the film and brushes conversations about her movie to the side. She even comments on how Stacy’s story was better than Cheryl’s further putting her down. I found the scene of Cheryl interviewing her mother to be rather interesting. Cheryl seems to talk to her in a tone that you would not usually take with your mother. She treats her more poorly than, in my opinion, she should. She even chooses to do the interview with her own mother off camera. While her voice can still be heard she is not pictured within the frame. When her mother is asked about the Watermelon Woman she states that she does not know who that is or anything about her. This to me is just another symbol of someone who does not support Cheryl and her topic of African American lesbian women.
I think the ending of Cheryl revealing that the Watermelon Woman is completely fictional is her way of saying that there are no famous African American lesbian women in the film industry. She is trying to bring attention to this issue to make people more aware. And in a way thus making her a famous African American lesbian in the film industry. She herself then become the Watermelon Woman (a famous African American lesbian in film) One question I have that is unrelated to the idea of self-reflection however is: why the wedding scene depicted in the beginning of the movie is a straight couple while almost every other character seen throughout are of the LGBT community. Why did Cheryl Dunye choose to picture a straight wedding instead of say two women?

So, what will you do if you lose whole your certification like a passport or a car license and around people, suddenly, become not to recognize you? In the film named “Unknown”, Dr. Martin (Liam Neeson) is exactly in that situation. He goes to Berlin with wife (January Jones) to attend an environmental symposium. After getting hotel, however, he realizes that he lost his certification at an airport and, on his way to there by taxi, he get a car accident. Then, after awaking from the accident, he realize that nobody recognize him, even his wife. After watching this film, I can’t stop admiring such a completely sophisticated narrative. But more than that, I think the best part of this film is using Berlin for the location setting.

Using Berlin as a setting of the film is a smart choice. One reason of that is, by setting Berlin as a location, the director could put main character, Dr. Martin, in hopeless situation to bring back his identity. Actually, when he lose his certifications, if he was in his home country, U.S., and could communicate with surround people, it might be easy to bring back those certifications. So, in order to prevent him from those possibilities, the film uses Berlin as a setting. For example, in the film, after losing his certifications, only person can certificate him is the taxi driver because the workers at a hotel he stay always ask him to show his certification and his wife does not recognize him strangely. Actually, he also tries to contact with acquaintance in U.S., it does not work well and, then, he is in almost hopeless situation.

Another good reason to use Berlin as a setting of the film is that it is fit for other minor characters. In this film, there are, of course, some important minor characters; however, a point the director should concern might be how to make those characters appeared naturally in this world. Regarding the point, Berlin might be the best choice. For example, the taxi driver is an immigrant from Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is related to the fact that the Germany is one of the countries which accept many immigrants in its countries. But, since the driver has entered Germany illegally, she is not cooperative with him. If the location is a less immigrant acceptable country, it is difficult to set this minor character’s position. Moreover, there is another important minor character, a detective who tries to investigate Martin’s certificate information. Actually his way to investigate is more than usual detective way, like using a back channel. Then, later we realize that he is come from a secret police in the East Germany. This is also one example of how the location fits the character in the story naturally.

Above all, this film has a excellent sophisticated narrative in it. However, such a splendid narrative is, actually, founded on location setting selected thoughtfully. Because this film’s real pleasure is enjoying the deeply thought story, I don’t mention about the story. Therefore, I really recommend you to watch this and enjoy the masterpiece by yourself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1401152/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

“Through the Olive Trees” is my favorite film we have watched so far.  I found that in order to completely comprehend the film it is necessary to understand the setting of the narrative.  We discussed it briefly in class; the story begins after an earthquake destroyed much of Iran. People were left homeless and in many cases with no surviving family members to lean on.  Iran’s history creates a foundation for the symbolism utilized in the film.   The idea of a house or lack of one was repeated throughout the story. A house seemed to symbolize what “used to be.,” or in other words pre-earthquake life. In contrast to the house another image or object repeated is the olive.  In many cultures an olive or olive branch represents compromise or a new beginning.  Together, these symbols reflect the current state of the country, Iran, in the film.  Before the earthquake, the people had established homes that were most likely past down through the generations. Nature so quickly took this from them. As a result forced them to make a decision; hold on to the rubble of the past or find a new future? Kirastami, the director of the film, uses symbolism to further emphasize the crossroads the people of Iran find themselves in post earthquake.

In general a house or home symbolize shelter or stability. It is a place where people seek comfort from the “outside” world. The idea of a home first appears in the film when the grandma is introduced to the audience. During that first shot of the house the camera is angled up giving the impression that the grandma should be respected.  This aids in determining that the Grandma does represent a generation from the past.  She is one of few who have not lost everything in the earthquake.  The fact that an elderly woman of an older generation still has her home lends to the notion that a house represents the past. The Grandma also vocalizes this when she refuses to give the young gentleman her blessing to wed her granddaughter.  When the boy asks what her reasons are she clearly states that not having a house is among her top concerns.  The boy quickly rebuts this with no one has a house, therefore making her argument not valid in his eyes.  This disagreement signifies that a house is an indicator of a past time. This idea is also represented in the film when the actor who plays a director asks a young mother what her permanent address is and she responds saying she no longer has one. This tells the audience that again, a home is a symbol of a different time.

Along with the symbol of the house the olive or the olive tree is a significant symbol as well. Historically, an olive branch symbolizes peace or contentment. The most memorable scene with an olive branch in the film is the final scene.  The last moments of the film depict Hossein running after the “love of his life, amidst blooming olive trees.  It is obvious to the audience that the olive trees are of importance because of the wide zoomed out shot. If Hossein running through the trees were the focal point of the scene then the camera would have followed him as he ran. The music accompanying the scene is happy, leading the audience to believe that Hossein’s marriage proposal was accepted.  Having the olive trees associated with the birth of a new relationship signal that the olive is a symbol of new or coming to peace with the old. The young couple went against what the generations before the earthquake believed and are accepting to move forward with life after the tragedy.

I do think that the symbol of the olive and the house individually provide a unique element to the film. That being said I think that together they create a bigger impact.  The two symbols represent the two options one faces after any tragedy and in this case specifically a natural disaster.  One can either hold on to the past and live life as it was or come to peace with the present, making way for a new future. The contrasting symbols represent the harsh reality of this choice.

Saving Mr. Banks is a drama and comedy that tells the story of how Mary Poppins came to be.  Directed by John Lee Hancock, this 2013 film also depicts the struggles one woman has to go through while dealing with an super icon legend named Walt Disney.  Nominated for multiply oscars, this movie does not disappoint viewers.

The movie starts off kind of slow, showing flashbacks of the main character P. L. Travers played by Emma Thompson. In the present day however, she is a struggling old woman who is losing money.  She reluctantly decides to go to Hollywood to see if she wants to sell her movie to Walt Disney.  Walt is played by oscar-nominated Tom Hanks and I think Hancock did a good job with depicting him.  He is this happy man, but also a man who usually gets what he wants.  This is interesting because Mrs. Travers is not just handing Mary Poppins over to Walt and that frustrates him.  Hancock did a job in showing the struggles that Mrs. Travers and the production crew had to go through in order to make the movie.

Although this movie would seem like in was made for older viewers, this movie is recommended for all disney lovers.  Getting the story behind a classic movie such as Mary Poppins fascinated me.  Hancock also does a good job of throwing the element of comedy in there to keep his viewers entertained.  The way Hancock portrays P. L. Travers is quite funny to.  The way she acts around Walt and the rest of the production crew is comical.  Everyone in the Disney corporation is jolly and happy, while Mrs. Travers brings this negative mood to the story which adds comedy in itself.  I like how she sees Walt as just another man and not this guy who is rich.  I also love how she degrades Walt and he can’t do anything about it because he really wants Mary Poppins to become a his next big movie.  Mrs. Travers may seem like a sassy, arrogant women, but it just adds on to the entertainment value of the movie.

The only dull moments in the movie were probably the flashbacks in the movie.  They were important for telling the background story of the movie, but as an audience member, they were kind of boring.  They were kind of a killjoy because they took us away from the sassy Mrs. Travers arguing with the production crew.  And it pulled us away from the Sherman brothers singing the songs such as “Spoonful of Sugar” and “Lets go Fly a Kite.”  Never-the-less, these flashbacks were just as important to the plot as the present day scenes.

Like his other movie “The Blind Side,” Hancock has once again told a story about struggles in life and how to overcome them. It shows how one woman’s love for her father can ultimately lead to a story about a woman who saves the children’s father from becoming separated from his kids. This movie is a must see for everyone and I highly recommend it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2140373/

Through the Olive Trees is a prime example of the Iranian New Wave in the sense that it has a small focus on children, we see traditional values play a role in the film, it’s film about filmmaking, poetry of everyday life through long shots, de-dramatization of actions, outdoor shooting and finally an exploration of Iranian Identity among others I am missing. Yet, because this film is so different than your typical Hollywood production it is difficult to maintain focus throughout the film. After primarily watching American/Hollywood productions for the last 20 some odd years I have become conditioned to expect an action packed film, or be laughing the whole time, or be deeply engaged by the plot, but Through the Olive Trees failed to capture any typical Hollywood elements. So how on earth am I going to be able to pay attention to a full length film that is at an extremely slow pace and lacks any action to say the least? By taking an empathetic approach to the film, I was able to associate with Hossein and this allowed me to engage in the film through his perspective.

In the beginning of the film, the lead male role in the film is occupied by another male other than Hossein, but due to a speech problem Hossein is given the role. This is where the first connection is made. Like Hossein, I myself have found myself falling into something simply out of good fortune or more so luck. It appears to be lucky that Hossein is given this role and especially because he now has a chance to woo the woman he is interested in. On the way to shoot the movie, the female driving Hossein is asking him if he remembers his lines and Hossein seems to not be focusing on what she is saying. He recites his lines, but clearly his mind appears to be elsewhere. As the movie goes on, I came to the conclusion that Hossein was thinking about Tahereh on the way to the film. As a straight male I could easily associate with Hossein and his clouded mind. I can recall multiple points in my life where I have had a female of interest on my mind which steered my focus away from what I was doing at the time. I’m sure I am not alone here, I would think all of us have let someone of interest come into our mind and distract us from what we are doing at the time. By making these connections, I was able to stay engaged during the film.

Yet the biggest connection I was able to make with Hossein was through the frustration of not being rejected, but being ignored to a certain extent. Throughout the film Hossein is extremely persistent with Tahereh, but she does not speak to him the entire movie. I felt myself getting frustrated for Hossein. Like him, I feel myself to be a determined individual and the fact that she was not accepting or rejecting him kept Hossein continuously pursuing her.  If Tahereh would have rejected Hossein, it may have taken a couple times, but I think Hossein would have moved his attention elsewhere. It was this silence that drove him to slowly increase his persistence throughout the film. We can see Hossein becoming frustrated by begging Tahereh for an answer. From my perspective I do not see how one could not be extremely frustrated by this. If you want something bad enough, you will not give up without a definite answer and this is why the silence did not deter Hossein from Tahereh.

In the final scene, based on my interpretation we are finally given some closure to the love story of Hossein and Tahereh. Although the final scene is ambiguous, from my empathy with Hossein the final scene make perfect sense. First, he sets his things down to run after Tahereh. After what appears to be Hossein catching up with Tahereh, he later runs back. Hossein could have easily ran with the things he was carrying to begin with, so by setting them down they were clearly not important at the time. Finally, after the two meet up, Hossein is running back. I believe Tahereh has given him some sort of positive answer. After all the build up for Hossein, had he been rejected I think he would have been so devastated he would have left what he set down or he would have at least not ran back to it. By him running back, we get a sense of the energy in Hossein at the time implying some positive vibes.

When watching difficult films, outside our normal realm of expertise, I think it is helpful to pick out something you can associate with to remain engaged for the whole film. Like Professor Platt has said, most of these films our movies people wouldn’t watch unless in a class like this. It has been very helpful to me to pick out something or usually someone in the film I can make a connection to and let this guide my focus for the film. Hopefully this will help you with your future studies of film.

Directed by Renny Harlin, Deep Blue Sea is a skillfully thrilling shark movie that stands apart from other films in its genre. Film critic, Robert Ebert, wrote that he “admired the sheer professionalism of this one as it doesn’t transcend its genre, but at least honors it.” Having also directed Die Hard 2 and Cutthroat Island, Harlin constructs a tasteful package of sharks, suspense, and special effects in this 1999 film.

In an attempt to find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, a scientist (Saffron Burrows) develops a way to use shark brain tissue to regenerate the human brain. Underwriting the research, a large corporation conserves a deep-sea laboratory that includes underwater living and research areas, not to mention vast shark corrals. In the opening scene, one of the sharks escapes the research center and tries to attack a boat inhabited by two young couples. During the first experience of watching this film, one would assume that it’s a classic shark-movie situation: “Jaws-like” nineties music, isolated teenagers in the middle of the ocean, accidentally spilling a bottle of wine in the ocean to foreshadow what’s to come next. The head of the corporation (Samuel L. Jackson) meets the rest of the key characters when he pays a visit to the laboratory. The cast includes a shark wrangler (Thomas Jane), a religious cook (LL Cool J), and other crew members: Jacqueline McKenzie, Aida Turturro, Stellan Skarsgard, and Michael Rapaport.

While some of these characters do not make it through the end of the film, the timing and manner of their attacks are perfectly interlaced throughout the distressed plot of attempted escape. Between storms, explosions, and numerous floods, the characters are forced to find their way out of the underwater lab, endangered by water pressure and sharks, along with an increasing flood line.

Deep Blue Sea takes a scientific spin on this classic genre. As experiments go wrong, the sharks become five times smarter as a result. Instead of behaving in typical ways, the sharks become increasingly smarter, forcing the characters to creatively scheme if they want to survive.

While the film’s special effects are advanced for the time period, unexpected moments are bountiful and executed with quickness and precision – leaving the audience pleasantly surprised. Whether viewing this film for the first time or your tenth, you will find hat the pace of the film is so incredibly ceaseless that it seems there is never a lull in the storyline. The non-diegetic score is compelling and effectively adds to the suspense, and even includes two tracks by LL Cool J himself. Written by Duncan Kenedy, Donna Power, and Wayne Powers, the screenplay is quick, clever, and includes just the right amount of memorable, quotable lines.

Powered by exceptional displays of physical cinematography, Deep Blue Sea is a must-see for audiences who appreciate a well-staged Spielbergian masterpiece. For those who haven’t yet had the pleasure of viewing this film, my parting advice is to sit back, relax, and enjoy it for what it is: an entertaining big-fish thriller that still has the power to surprise.

Cheryl Dunye’s The Watermelon Woman is a film unlike most. The entire storyline and fine details separate it from the classic Hollywood feel and cause it to embrace its true individuality. This film obtains many Independent “Indie” qualities. It tells the story from a different viewpoint than the traditional Hollywood standard. It was made on a scarce budget and there were not any well-known actors. The Watermelon Woman, I would consider, is the epitome of an indie film. It exemplifies the obvious characteristics of what many would call an independent film, but also a few others that help to really set the movie apart. Dunye directs for a particular acting style and movie genre that was rare until the 1990’s.

The Watermelon Woman takes on a documentary like form even though it is a completely made up story. It thrives in a “fake documentary” sort of genre that was rare up until a boom in the 1990’s. For a film to be considered a fake documentary it must appear to be exactly that. Fake documentaries follow the characteristics and qualities that a standard documentary would, except it is fiction. The entire cast, crew, and audience are aware that although it may appear otherwise, the story is made up. In The Watermelon Woman’s case, the story is completely made up but there are some true historical aspects such as the nameless African American actors. The fake documentary is the movie’s narrative. Because the film was released during the period where this sort of style was only just being introduced, it was set apart from most films. This “wannabe” documentary style along with other aspects of Dunye’s work helped to flourish it as a unique and independent film.

Another aspect that really helped to attribute to the indie feel of the film is the acting style. Naturalistic acting is meant to be extremely realistic. It is used more so in theater and is meant to be illusive; making the story feel like real life. The acting style within the movie helps to compliment the fake documentary idea mentioned earlier. Documentaries are meant to embody real life. The only way real life can be embodied through a fake documentary is if the acting appears as realistic as possible. The acting between the characters was very low key and truly felt like everyday, normal conversation. Even when Cheryl would attach her microphone and speak to the camera, the simplicity of the acting made it feel as though the movie was non-fiction.

Lastly, the protagonist role helped to define the film’s independent stature. It is common for indie films to follow the bad guy, or the alternate perspective, of what most classic Hollywood films do. They tend to label the classic antagonist as more of the protagonist. Homosexuality is a topic that was avoided in Hollywood at this time. It was not common for big name movies to obtain much sexual diversity. When this film was made, untraditional sexual orientations would have been considered “outcasts” or “misfits.” The Watermelon Woman follows not only a lesbian, but also an African American lesbian on her journey to discover another actress. During the 1990’s, this plot line screamed independent film.

Movies can be determined as independent for a multitude of reasons. The Watermelon Woman just so happens to exemplify almost every characteristic possible.

In this contemporary day and age, there are in fact many disappointing efforts in rehashing classic Hollywood movies. For most cases, many directors will apply special effects in order to outshine and elaborate the sense of reality, but ironically they usually never compare to the excitement of the original film. However, Martin Scorsese has an incredible approach in remaking a classic thriller when he reissued his own version of Cape Fear in 1991. Scorsese’s personal adaption was released exactly 29 years following the release of the original 1962 film of the same name, with the remake including several cameos of main actors from the original film. However, this review is aimed to analyze the amount of potential Hollywood remakes can have with a modern, impressionable audience who may be unfamiliar with the original production. The film stars Robert De Niro as Max Cady, a Southern, sociopathic rapist who has just been released from prison and is thirsty for terrorizing his former lawyer. As well, Nick Nolte stars as Sam Bowden, a successful attorney and former public defender living in the fictional, affluent town of West Essex, North Carolina (seemingly adjacent to the Cape Fear River although never emphasized) with his bitter wife, Leigh (Jessica Lange) and troublesome daughter, Danielle (Juliette Lewis).

Sam Bowden was once a public defender based out of Atlanta, Georgia although now works for a prestigious law firm in eastern North Carolina. When an uneducated Cady was convicted of raping a teenage girl, Bowden was appointed to represent Cady on the entitlement of legal defense for the accused. Due to poor legal representation, Cady internally vows revenge on Sam Bowden and his family. Specifically, Bowden possessed a report confirming the rape victim’s promiscuity, and such information could have Cady acquitted from such charges. However, due to some obscure conflict of morality, Bowden buried the document from the prosecution with self-assured protection due to his client’s illiteracy. After a 14 year sentence, Cady can now read while he surreptitiously and gradually terrorizes his former counselor.

In the original, Sam Bowden (Gregory Peck) solely testifies against Max Cady (Robert Mitchum) in court for being an eyewitness to a rape incident that occurred in Baltimore, Maryland. Therefore, Scorsese justifies how much effort he applied to this remake in order to enhance the sense of fear (pun intended) for the exposed audience. As well, the original film portrays the family as a prosperous and non-dysfunctional unit. However, the remake focuses on the Bowden family problems that are causing the possible deterioration of the family’s stability; this includes Sam’s past infidelity, Leigh’s depression and Danielle’s rebelliousness. Therefore, Scorsese creates a more unstable family setting than the original, enhancing the idea that the family members are taking each other for granted on a daily, exacerbating basis.

These innovative changes introduced by Scorsese outlines that he sympathizes with the average American family, considering the fact that divorce, infidelity and domestic mistrust have become the normalcy for the common family structure of the 1990’s. Also, there are other relevant entities that help embellish the personality of some characters. For instance, Danielle is a skeptical, naïve teenager obligated to summer school enrollment after being caught with marijuana. Her bedroom posters elaborate both her personality and lifestyle, including famous music groups such as Megadeth, The Cure, Guns N’ Roses, and also a scene where she’s watching the Jane’s Addiction music video for “Been Caught Stealing” (a huge hit in 1990). These efforts are utilized in a very professional and experienced matter; considering the fact that the modern audience has some congruency in music taste with the youthful lifestyles of the supporting cast. Drawing a parallel between the interests of both the audience and characters is necessary, especially for the early 1990’s, when alternative rock, grunge, and heavy metal were highly popular music genres for Danielle Bowden’s Generation X demographic. In that sense, Scorsese was very creative and highly sympathetic to the interests and trends of younger American generations. Such decorative details are highly necessary in characterizing such roles that may have not included enough importance in the original 1962 movie.

Overall, Scorsese did an exceptional job at enhancing the possibilities behind a movie remake. Considering the original film did not follow the family problems as intimately as Scorsese did when he redeveloped the plot with a higher degree of suspense and characterization. The 1991 remake should assure American film enthusiasts that rehashing an older film can have incredible capabilities if the director can sufficiently rewrite the script in favor of their innovative ambitions. Although highly violent and frightening, Cape Fear is an incredible film that illustrates how a sadistic ex-con manages to intrude and encroach on the prosperity of a seemingly solidified family unit. Since the release of Truman Capote’s, In Cold Blood, the American film audience acknowledged that even the most common family can experience the most terrifying reality, given the nation’s cesspool of vengeful criminals who are hastily freed once the sentence is served. Cape Fear is another grim account of how innocent American families are justifiably fearful from such sinister human tendencies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101540/