Alec Roberts

Amelie: The Quintessential French Film Released in the US in 2001, Amelie directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet is a romantic comedy set in idyllic Paris. The film chronicles the fantastical and amusing life of Amelie Poulin, played exquisitely by Audrey Tautou. Jeunet also employed the collaboration of cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel and divine music by Yann Tiersen. All of which help to set you on a heart-warming, philosophical, and very French journey. The plot revolves around Amelie, an endearing, introverted wallflower. Who notices every minute detail in life, often the things many people overlook. One day she accidentally discovers something in her apartment and is compelled to return it to its previous owner. Much to Amelie’s surprise, this unexpected discovery sets her off on a peculiar journey where she encounters an assortment of eccentric and flawed characters. The style of this film is really what accentuates it and has made this film a triumph. This is particularly due to the cinematography and the music. A lot of the imagination and quirkiness inside Amelie is delivered through these two mediums. Delbonnel incorporates various elements to emphasize the moods of scenes, even animating inanimate objects. This paired with the quirky and sublime score by Tiersen is a joy to behold. Much of the storytelling is aided by Delbonnel and Tiersen’s work. It is almost a maximalist style of quirkiness, but the balance is just right and only benefits the plot. The music is especially recognizable and feels like an extension of Amelie herself. Despite the film largely focusing on Amelie, it is equally about the other characters she encounters. Her downstairs neighbour Raymond Dufayel is played by Serge Merlin. A man whose bones are as brittle as glass, making him a recluse. The development of Amelie’s relationship with this character is one that brings much joy and unforeseen wisdom. Amelie is a whimsical tale of a girl who has a sad upbringing and manages to create a life for herself which is full of joy and love. We should all hope to have a friend like Amelie in our lives and if we don’t, this film shows us how we can be that person for someone else. The various treasures and metaphors in this film can be revisited again and again given the timelessness of this captivating film.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf was Mike Nicholas’s directorial debut. Released in 1966 it received warm acclaim, assembling several Academy Award nominations. The film is based on the play by Albee Edwards, which was staged on Broadway in 1962. For the film adaption, Nicholas collaborated with cinemaphotographer Haskell Wexler and screenplay by Ernest Leham producing a volatile and intimate drama. This is equally brought to life by the portrayals given by the four actors, Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Bourton, George Segal, and Sandy Denis. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf provides a psychologically uncomfortable experience showing some distressed individuals. The premiss of the story revolves and the central couple Martha played by Taylor and George played by Burton. It follows them one night as they’re finishing a day at work at a New England College compass. A younger couple Nick and Honey, played by Segal and Denis join them. The evening turns into a bizarre soiree and develops into a series of psychological games which unravel the couples into some emotionally charged states. While emotionally vulnerable secrets unravel, and more light is given to the dynamics of these relationships. Especially the chaotic and resentful one of Martha and George. Which is so accurately and powerfully delivered by Taylor. Nowadays there are a plethora of films showcasing the complexity and unpredictability of relationships. The core themes of this film would have been ground-breaking for the time, rarely were such raw and precarious relationships shown so closely on screen. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf really set the direction for these types of dramas. The full emotional range of these characters would not have come across if it wasn’t for Wexler’s contributions with Nicholas. So much of this film requires a constant level of tension all of which are captured so clearly. Close-ups and angles showing the intensity of the characters only aid them more with their performances. Yet the greatest technique employed by Wexler and Nicholas is to keep it simple. This black and white film doesn’t need many embellishments as the performance of the actors is the true star. The subtly imposed in the cinematography is what gives the performances their impact. It is also worth noting that the on-screen chemistry of both Taylor and Burton comes through and speaks to their connection. You could hazard a guess that the themes featured throughout this plot, echoes their fuelled relationship off-screen. Nonetheless, this is a superb film that highlights the complexity and nuance of relationships.

Monster: A Deeply Nuanced Triumph by Patty Jenkins Monster, released in 2003, is a deeply profound and complex story focusing on the life of Aileen Wuornos. A former prostitute based in Florida who became a convicted serial killer and murders several of her former clients. Her case and story are fraught with intense conflict, love and volatile relationships. All of which were masterfully directed and written by Patty Jenkins. Monster was also Jenkins's directorial debut, which is equally as impressive given the depth and complexity of this story. Wuornos played by acclaimed actress Charlize Theron, delivers a captivating portrayal that is matched by co-star Christina Ricki. Who plays Selby Wall, Wuonos’s love interest in the film. The story of Monster, follow’s Wuornos’s life and the circumstances which led her to become a murderer. The traditional trope of a serial killer in film doesn’t leave much room for understanding or empathy. Yet this film does and shows the audience how we can ultimately become the products of our own circumstances. The amount of trauma and violation Wuornos experiences in her life is unfathomable. The terror and horror she endures is hard to imagine. The scenes displaying this are difficult to watch and are delivered in such an uncomfortable way by cinematographer Steven Bernstein. How these moments of sexual assault and abuse are captured is truly horrifying. Yet when we see this, we come to understand why Wuornos is the way she is. She is a broken person, who is ultimately trying to survive after drawing some merciless cards. The great takeaway from this film is that it makes us realize that two things can be true. She is both a murderer and a victim of her circumstance. The profoundness of this film cannot be understated, it is hard to examine this story and not feel a deep sense of despair. Wuornos is obviously a victim of her own situation and a result of great tragedy. Mixed in with all her pain and trauma though is Selby, who opens her up to what love is. The juxtaposition of love against such devastation provides an unfamiliar sense of humanity. Which is really at the cornerstone of this film by Jenkins. Monster is a cinematic triumph in storytelling and a real credit to the direction given by Jenkins.

Released in 2004 Napoleon Dynamite directed by Jared Hess provides a very peculiar and goofy story of a dorky teenager called Napoleon played by Jon Heder. Set in Idaho, Heder is brought up in a middle-class family, with his equally eccentric brother whose life revolves around internet chat rooms. The film chronicles the life of Napoleon, a socially awkward teenager, and the relationships he must navigate during his time at high school. The often abhorrent trials of a teenage hood is not a new story in cinema. Yet Hess was able to revamp this typical narrative and update it with an array of whimsical elements. There are many components of this film that make it so distinctive and notable. A lot of the weight and success is delivered from the performances given by Heder and his new friend Pedro, played by Efren Ramirez. The portrayals of their characters are memorizing and appropriately uncomfortable at times. Heder’s half-glazed facial expressions, to awkward running style, are endearing and add his to character perfectly. Along with the superb acting, cinematographer Munn Powell captures these characters entirely and lets their individuality fly. Despite the commentaries being quite different, Munn and Ernest Dickerson from Do the Right Thing, distinctly use shots that highlight internal dialogues of the characters. These cues let the audience understand their internal monologues, while also help them get immersed into the character's world. Napoleon Dynamite was a low-budget film but the revenue it made at the box office speaks to its success and how this film was important to a specific generation. Regardless of this, the uniqueness and absurdity of this film very much make it a classic. It was a cultural snapshot in time, as the quotable phrases were heard a lot in the mid-2000s and the vote for Pedro shirts streamed through fast fashion clothing brands. Napoleon Dynamite's humour could be for a certain taste, however, when we analyze it through its production and the various nuances of the film, we can recognize why it’s special and was such a success. Furthermore, to have a comedy that provides a social commentary of a teenager coming of age, during the trials of high school is quite heart-warming. Its universality is something most people can empathize with. Napoleon Dynamite may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but this strange and absurd film is a gem.

Do the Right Thing directed by Spike Lee, is a prime example of the power of humour in film. Lee uses it to make a strong commentary of society and race in America. Written and directed by Lee we’re pushed into a world that is full of heat and constant neighbourhood dynamics. Released in 1989 this film provides a snapshot in the lives of a predominantly black community in the neighbourhood of Brooklyn, New York. Given the events of 2020 with the Black Lives Matter movement, it’s a sad reminder that Lee was highlighting racial oppression decades earlier and that institutionalised racism is still so prevalent today. Using humour as a gateway to other more profound themes isn’t a new technique, but Lee uses many motifs in the film which emphasize the social landscape these characters live in. Whether it is the use of rap music, to fashion, all the elements come together to form some form of symbolism. The film is very much like observing a sociology class and the interactions between different groups of people from different backgrounds. The neighbourhood in which these characters revolve around is largely a black community but interactions with American Italians and police occur frequently. This of course leads to various levels of conflict and may trigger a nerve when we think of the brutality many police have inflicted on these communities today, especially given the events around George Floyd. Lee’s direction was able to display all the madness and mayhem in this film. Additionally, the cinematography by Ernest Dickerson was able to emphasise key moments with the use of close-ups when the characters were emotionally expressing themselves. This enables the audience to grasp the intensity of the characters and what they were feeling at the time. As the title alludes to, doing the right thing, is easier said than done. Especially when people aren’t looking and particularly if you’re a part of an oppressed group of people. Trying to make ends meet, surviving in a society that has put you several steps back based on the colour of your skin is discriminatory, to say the least. This film truly captures how racism has spread throughout society and is a stark reminder that systematic structures still create this. Do The Right Thing may not be everyone’s cup of tea with humour, but Lee has masterfully created a captivating film. Which accurately depicts the lives of a community that has the world pressed up against them.

The Great Dictator released in 1940 stars the ever witty and clever Charlie Chaplin. This unexpected film has Chaplin give a satirical perspective of WW1, as he portrays two roles, a Jewish Barber and a dictator Adenoid Hynkel. What’s equally as impressive is the film was also written and directed by Chaplin. Using comedy as a vehicle, Chaplin was able to satirize Hitler and WW 1 with great success. Which sounds incredibly absurd on paper, yet this film manages to do so with slapstick humour and a certain amount of clever irony. Which surprisingly works juxtaposed to such a horrific time in human history. You forget the circumstance this character is in and the seriousness of what it all means. Yet despite this you find yourself swept up and drawn into this peculiar plot which Chaplin masterfully sets up from the beginning. Whether it be him comically trying to fire a machine gun or flying a plane upside down while the pilot has fainted. It’s these almost ludicrous moments that bring light to this film and are a complete contrast to what this conflict meant. What’s truly astounding about this film is Chaplin’s ability to make light of such a dark period in history. To present it in 1940 would not have been an easy feat either. As the moral of the story, is really a commentary on war and a condemnation of it. It would be easy to think watching this film that it’s just a silly romp, delivered in the most unusual environment for a comedy. However, that would be incredibly limiting and dismissive of the real star of this film. Humour in this instance has been used as a vehicle to disguise something much more profound. The real star of this is the comments on humanity and the devastation of war. Chaplin intelligently was aware of the power of comedy and was, therefore, able to deliver something much more moving and thought-provoking. Without giving much away it is hard not to mention the monologue towards the end of the film. Under the disguise as a dictator, Chaplin surprises the audience by delivering a deeply philosophical and unexpected speech. He emphasises brotherhood, humanity, and how we as humans should relate to one another. This scene alone is why this film is so timeless. Not just because of its witty use of humour but its masterful skill of commenting on something much more meaningful.

Directed by Robert Altman, Vincent and Theo delves into the complex and often heated relationship of Vincent Van Gogh and his brother Theo Van Gogh. Released in 1990 this film was constructed by Altman, alongside the help of screenwriter Julian Mitchell, while produced by Ludi Boeken, Emma Hayter, and David Conroy. The title roles of Vincent and Theo were played by British actors Tim Roth and Paul Rhys. Altman provides a unique portrait of the relationship of these brothers, which goes from admiration to eventual disdain. Vincent’s life has been adapted into film many times and his life is portrayed in many mediums. What is unique about this depiction is the focus on Vincent’s inability to get recognized and how this affects his relationship with his brother. From a historical perspective, it is noted that Vincent appeared to be a troubled man when in actuality could very well have been the circumstances he was dealt with. Nonetheless, it is an interesting take on his story and relationship to observe. There is no doubt this film provides an interesting perspective into the famous Vincent and how his works were never really valued while he was alive. This disappointment mixed in with his brotherly affection leaves for a potentially interesting narrative. However, for a two-hour film, the plot never really delivers and leaves you feeling irritated. Tim Roth plays Vincent convincingly, as the rather obscure character man he is and the same can be said for Paul’s portrayal of the almost pedantic and frustrated brother. Nonetheless, you can’t help but feel that these actors are merely playing interpretations of a character and using their regular personas. This isn’t helped by the fact that they’re both obviously British and have no real connection to the Netherlands. This doesn’t seem to be a problem for the other characters, they are able to speak English with a French accent. Altman puts forward a curious portrait of the Van Goths and set the film up to be quite unique from the preface of the film. However, unfortunately, it falls short and fails to captivate the audiences with its narrative or its cinematography. It’s hard not to watch this film and not compare it to another film about Vincent Van Goth. Especially one’s such as Loving Vincent, released in 2017. Which was able to convey this curious painter and engage the audience with his fascinating life. The execution of this film leaves you feeling a little lackluster and not engaged. The premise of this film had good bones, but it was unable to deliver something noteworthy or believable.

Released in 1980 the Raging Bull is an aptly named title for this classic film by Martin Scorsese. It chronicles the life and career of Jake Le Motta, a middleweight boxer. As the title suggest this film spends time amid a character that is full of rage and chaos. Like most films of a certain time period, it can be hard to view it from the perspective and values of the 21st century. There is no doubt that spending time with this character is draining, to say the least. However, there are various moments in this film where Scorsese was able to showcase the tragic life of this very flawed character and completely mesmerize the audience. The central themes of this film display a man that is drenched in insecurity, doubt, and anger. It is a recipe for disaster as he attempts to become a champion boxer. The ring in which he fights is almost a metaphor for his life and the black and white film almost makes this story more profound. It’s a story of a man against himself, trapped in his own internal conflict. This is ironic because his occupation is to annihilate another person in a boxing ring. Naturally, his internal turmoil flows over to every aspect of his life, whether it be relationships family, and business. It is hard to take a breath as this story is the epitome of rage. Nonetheless despite all this anarchy Scorsese, with the help of cinematographer Michael Chapman was able to inject moments of beauty. In an attempt to distract from the mayhem, the real stars of this film are the injections of cinematography and music. Amidst what seems like endless broils, Scorsese quiets out the noise, then will suddenly and gently insert a classical motif. This is drawn from the film's profound main theme song, Cavalleria Rusticana, Intermezzo. These classical moments are sprinkled throughout the film and usually accompany very brutal scenes. These moments provide a way of storytelling that is equally as intense as hearing the actors. As it allows us to take a step back and see the scene for what it truly is. Robert De Nero plays Le Motta with great tact. A difficult character to love and feel much remorse for. Yet De Nero executes his performance with great conviction. His performance is equally mirrored by his co-stars Cathy Moriarty and Joe Pesci. The combination of Scorsese directing De Nero’s performance and the inflections of classic music make this a film worth watching. It won’t be everyone’s cup of tea but it’s certainly a film worth watching due to its contribution to American cinema.

The Grapes of Wrath directed by John Ford shows the journey of a farming family from Oklahoma, who lose their farm during the Great Depression and venture for more opportunity in California. This film encapsulates many themes, especially the cultural narrative of the American dream. Arguably a recognizable and continuous narrative of American cinema. This film displays a snapshot in time, demonstrating the cultural landscape in cinema and the backdrop of the United States in the 1930’s. There are many reasons this film should be regarded as a classic, least of all its ability to tell a story and engage the audience with the struggles these characters face. It’s hard not the watch this film and recognize that the reason why it has such a fundamental reach is because of the cinematography. It goes to show, that the visual effects we are now so accustomed to, do not necessarily equate to an emotionally captivating picture. The combination of John Ford’s directing and Greg Toland’s cinematography is really what helped this film stand out. Toland was able to highlight key moments throughout the plot which needed attention and draw them out to full effect. Even the opening scene, displays a very barren landscape, which echoes the future struggles these characters will face. The film is largely viewed through the lens of Tom Joad, played by Henry Fonda. Who plays the eager and youthful character quite convincingly. However, the true star of this movie is Ma Joad, played incredibly realistically by Jane Darwell. Who won an academy award for her role in this film. As the matriarch of the Joad family, Darwell portrays this character with pure abandonment, so much so that you feel a great deal of empathy for her. This character is often the glue that holds this family together. For all her grit, she also has an equal amount of softness and love. Ford’s direction towards these characters and the battles they face leave a very convincing impact. This accolade should not just go to Ford as it’s the result of a team effort, from sound, cinematography to wardrobe. The beautiful nuances of this film are sprinkled throughout and help show the journey of each of these characters. Much like the book, the film The Grapes of Wrath is a timeless classic. Despite the complexity and dark themes, the collective contributions of this film produce a captivating movie. One which demonstrated a new age in American Cinema.