“Wings” and What Not.... :D

So this week, I was able to watch most of a remastered film called “Wings”. It was a 1927 American action silent film (all words were written in borders) that starred Clara Bow, one of the great early actresses of film. The film was an original black and white, silent film w/ dramatic narration and some remastered affects that had been added (such as the orange, red plums form the back of disabled planes crashing to earth.) While this film was mostly based on war – WWII in particular, it had several aspects of the script and directing that I found interesting and worthy of analyzing and extra thought.

Clara Bow mentioned once that she felt she was put in the film because she was the studio's most popular actress and that the film didn't need her... but I will say that I loved her in the film and I'm not sure the film would have had the same 'open' flavor that I felt it had with her in it. To be blunt, I don't think it would have been at all enjoyable for me without her in it. It was her expressions and her feelings toward the character Jack Powell that actually drew me into the film and caused me to have interest in the film at all. Clara played a character called Mary Preston who found it very challenging to hide her feelings and love for Jack Powell. Jack was very attracted to another girl named Sylvia Lewis, but Sylvia is in love with a boy named David Armstrong. The boy's rivalry follows them when they both enlist in the Army to be fighter pilots and only after some tension do both David and Jack find a way to get along and become friends. The movie plot follows these two young men through the war as well as Mary Preston and how the war changed them. I highly recommend taking the time to watch it if you have the inclination.

One of the acting techniques that silent films needed to use in the past to help the viewers understand the plot of the film was to use written narration. When parts of the plot needed to move along faster, a little music and some written words could not only change the scene but also lets us as an audience know exactly how everything had changed- environment, situation, etc... In our current media, much of what we use to help move plot and emotion along is words. Films also use body language and facial expression, but words and sound really matters. Many films use sound and facial expression to help us to realize the thoughts of the characters we are watching. This film being soundless had only two options to let the audience know what was going on- the narration and the music... or the body language and facial movements. Pantomime is a wonderful skill and I felt like the written language in the film wasn't very useful to me... I felt pulled into the story through every movement on the character's faces. These actors used everything they had to express what was in their head and I felt like I could understand the words that that were said – even though I couldn't hear them- I could understand just from their faces and their eyes. Most of the emotions / thoughts that I could feel coming from the actors that helped me to understand what was going on seemed to come from directly from their eyes. At one point I found myself staring at Clara Bow and felt pulled in... sucked into her frustration and sorrow over Jack, fear for his safety and excitement over her new opportunity to drive which opens up her world a bit more. That skill- it is definitely a skill- is something that most actors these days can't (or at least don't) do. I wouldn't be at all unhappy if I found some time to finish the film outside of class. :)

So what silent films have you seen? Do you have a favorite? If you have watched this film, what did you think about it. This was my first introduction to Clara Bow and I would love to watch more things that she starred in. I felt like she was that good! Please share your thoughts... :)

"Primary Colors" and the Blurring of Vision

When the book first came out in 1996 by Anonymous, I was really not interested in reading it and I pretty much felt the same way when the movie came out. I had a gut feeling about both the movie and book that is a little convoluted, but came down to three thoughts; I don't really like films that seem solely political or are heavily about politics, I didn't want to watch a 'slam' movie about the Clintons even if I wasn't one of their biggest fans, and I felt like it would just be a waste of time. So I didn't think about it and the world moved on....

So... second week in class and I'm sitting watching another movie I had no interest in except that I had been intrigued by the movie clips shown in my first week of class so I was hopeful that I would learn something and have fun this time... and I did. I was really affected by the film - both emotionally and intellectually. I didn't sleep for several hours afterwards because I really needed to digest the feelings and thoughts it provoked. After much contemplation, I decided to write about the largest emotional paradox that I found when watching and analyzing this film.

This film gave a reporter's viewpoint....or a 'loose' biography about President Bill Clinton's first primary election and some of the challenges he faced: political, personal, and moral. These ideas were portrayed through characters named Jack and Susan Stanton.

Susan - "It's four in the morning- let's just tell the truth"

The underlying emotional theme that I felt throughout the film was how much all of us, and especially me, live in a paradox when we are politically active. To be informed and to try and make informed decisions, a person usually does some research, talks with friends and family, reads or listens to the candidates and their views... and then we hopefully make our choices on the ballot based on what we think is right for us, our neighbors and community, and what our moral and intelligent self believes to be the right choices for all. However, while we do all this, most of us understand that what we are told, read, hear in ads, etc... is not only biased, but sometimes not the least bit true. We know this, instinctively and intellectually... and yet we make our choices based on these 'truths' that we know to be wrong, biased or at least not totally truthful; or factual.

Henry - "I want to believe it."
"I'll take the liar"

So why do we make the choices that we do? Why do we believe any of it... why do we know about the paradox and yet yield and participate in it?

Libby - “...Without them, I'm dark and black and cold and dead and empty and airless for eternity....”

And that pretty much says it all. Inside all of us - we want to believe and we all want to feel a connection to greatness... or what we think is greatness. We want to believe in the person, in what they say, in their promises for better things. As proof of that we rarely elect the moral, truthful person. We understand and expect the phoniness of politics and our politicians. We see the bad, the ugly and we compartmentalize it in our minds and view the thoughts separately if we are still willing to give the person a chance. I'm loath to admit it, but charisma, acting, and good looks with a lot of money still go pretty far in this country...especially in both the professions of acting/theater and politics. In many ways they are bred of the same cloth and that is easily evidenced by some of our politicians - Reagan or Schwarzenegger to name two.

I have believed for many years that real politicians are true 'shape shifters' or maybe benign 'boggarts' (from Harry Potter.) They can make us feel good and right and cared for even as they do things that horrify and sicken us. We accept the worst in them that we wouldn't accept in ourselves or most others. This film brought that home very strongly for me as I found myself disappointed in and disgusted by Jack Stanton... yet rooting for him to win in the end. And I found myself almost crying at the death of Libby realizing that my idealism in politics is just as dead even if I am still breathing. An amazing film on some extraordinary lives.