Justice by Injustice.

Frank Lucas, American Gangster (2007)

Schränker, M (1931)

Frank Lucas – a drug lord notoriously known for “cutting out the middlemen” and getting his supplies of heroin directly from The Golden Triangle in Vietnam and selling them “fresh and untethered” on the streets. He ruled Harlem back in the late 1960’s; having men and women working for him all over the streets, married to Julianna Farrait, a beautiful homecoming queen from Puerto Rico at the time, owned several mansions and living the life – a successful businessman.

Schränker – a criminal character in the movie M who robbed banks and murdered for a living, untouchable by the police force, had men working for him all over the streets, doing well in life due to profits from his illegal business – a successful businessman.

What these two men have in common is that they both did things as they see fit – regardless of the law. Whether it was about making profits or “doing the right thing”, they had a set of principles in which they have written in their heads from the way they lived their lives over the years. I chose to compare American Gangster which was directed by Ridley Scott and M which was directed by Fritz Lang because they are similar in two ways – they are both films about criminals taking the law into their own hands, and they are both brilliant film noirs. The three areas of these two films that I will compare are the mise en scene, the semiotics of the films and the essence and example of how they are both film noirs.

The mise en scene in American Gangster and M are not very far apart from each other. They were both films that emphasized very heavily on criminal life; and in terms of the type of criminals, the way the criminals run the streets and the hierarchy among the criminals themselves are all incredibly similar. American Gangster started off with Frank Lucas and his boss at the time, Bumpy Johnson torturing and eventually literally burning a man who was thought to have deceived them. It was set in a very dark and very deserted place; there was no one but Frank and his boss Bumpy. When Frank burnt the man and then shot him to shut him up, all Bumpy did was smoke his cigar and watched on with an expressionless face. No emotions, no form of remorse from taking a man’s life. They barely said anything. The moment Frank shot him, a very haunting form of music came on – which turned out to be the theme for the entire movie. M on the other hand started off with a less “dramatic” scene. There was no music, no fire and no gun shots. On the contrary, M started off with little children standing in a circle and playing a game. It was very cheerful and not peril to look at – until the subtitles came on. “Just you wait a little while, the nasty man in black will come. With his little chopper, he will chop you up” – a little girl playfully says. It was a shocker. What seemed like a very normal and optimistic scene turned out to be ironically dark and somewhat disturbing. Again, it was set in a relatively deserted place. There was no one around but the children playing. Even though it wasn’t as violent and “parental advisory” as American Gangster, M started off with its own degree of darkness and gloom. Majority of the rest of both American Gangster and M were set on the streets. For example, Frank Lucas would be roaming around Harlem making sure his business is running smoothly; while Richie Roberts – a cop who was pursuing Frank – would be looking for clues and witnesses on the streets as well. In M, everyday citizens were roaming around the streets, the police would be looking for clues and witnesses on the streets, and beggars were assigned by the criminals to watch the streets. Besides that, there were also a lot of classic criminal “meetings” in both movies – involving a massive amount of smoking, custom tailored suits and talks about business. In American Gangster, most of these meetings were held in night clubs. Although the night clubs were packed, the actual meeting between two or more criminals would always be held “in the back” or in a private place. In M, Schränker and his colleagues had their meeting in a private apartment; having no one around but themselves – away from the roaming police and the citizens. Of course, in both films, everyone was smoking; the only difference is that in American Gangster, they were smoking more than just cigars.

Semiotics – the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation. There were certainly plenty of semiotics to be talked about in American Gangster and M. The most obvious in both films would be the tailored suits and the fancy hats. Frank Lucas from American Gangster always put on a very well tailored suit. His cousins – which worked for him – also had tailored suits and fancy shoes. In M, Schränker and his boys also wore tailored shirts throughout the movie. Besides that, there is a scene in American Gangster where  Frank wears a very expensive coat and a fancy hat to match. In M, Schränker wore a fancy hat at the end scene in the courtroom. The suits – to me – portrayed wealth and success. Both Frank and Schränker were wealthy and very successful in what they did. In contrast to the sloppy suits that all the detectives in both movies wore, the suits showed that Frank and Schränker were above the detectives in terms of wealth and class of living. In addition to the suits – and what differenciated them from the rest of the criminals – Frank and Schränker had very fancy, very expensive hats. To me, it was those hats in those scenes that signified a complete disintegration between Frank & Schränker and everyone else. The hats showed us that they were in charge, they were the bosses of everyone else – including the law. That is a very strong sign of semiotics. Another clear analysis of semiotics that could be made in both movies is how the criminals seem to be doing a better job than the law enforcement. The law enforcenemt was close to helpless in M. With all the effort that they put in, they had no idea who the child murderer was. In fact, they did not even know where to start. On the other hand, when it came to Schränker and his boys, not only did they come up with the most brilliant idea ever, they actually managed to capture the murderer in the end. Detective Richie Roberts did not seem so helpless in American Gangster; however, it took him a massive amount of loss and heart wrenching sacrifices for him to catch up with Frank Lucas in the end. The semiotics of it is that both movies made the criminals seem so much more efficient and a lot smarter than the law enforcement. Besides the difference in the living class, both films showed us how unreliable the law is and in contrast to that, how much better and more successful it is to be in organized crime.

A film noir is defined as a type of crime film featuring cynical malevolent characters in a sleazy setting and an ominous atmosphere that is conveyed by shadowy photography and foreboding background music. Film noir started in the early 1940’s – which is exactly when M was made. Although M did not have any music throughout the entire movie, it had its own essence of pessimism. In other words, M did not need the use of music to create a dark and hollow feel for the audience to experience. In fact, it was simply because of the absence of music that made M such a thrilling and aphotic movie. American Gangster on the other hand had a lot of music. However, the music did not make the movie any less cynical. When someone was killed, a very thrilling form of orchestra would be played – which made me feel indomitable at certain points – as if I was the one who shot a guy and I felt proud doing it. When there was trouble in the Lucas family especially between Frank and his wife, there was almost no music at all. That emphasized very heavily on the emotions and uneasiness that Denzel Washington so brilliantly portrayed. In terms of lighting, film noirs are easily defined – dark. As mentioned before, American Gangster started off in a very dark and deserted place. Throughout the whole movie – in almost every set that Frank was in – Vietnam, his own mansion, the night clubs and even in the interrogation room with Richie Roberts – it was dark. The atmosphere was always very gloomy. Even when everything was going well with Frank, the set and the lighting was always gloomy. In M, it goes without saying that majority of the film was relatively dark – lighting wise and emotion wise. Even though it was a black & white movie, it was very clear for the audience to see how dark it was. The best example would be when Schränker and his boys were looking for Hans in the office building. Throughout the entire scene, Schränker’s men were looking for him in total darkness and Hans kept running into darker places to avoid being captured. Besides that, the whole scene was shot during night time.

I always loved films about criminals – especially when the criminals are above the law. American Gangster, M, The Godfather and even Public Enemies which is a movie about another notorious criminal – John Dillinger. I personally agree with these movies in some degrees that the law is unreliable at times and when it is a matter of fact, we should turn to people who do what they want even if it is against the law because they know exactly what they are doing. I chose these two movies because American Gangster is one of my favourite ever movies and M was my favourite movie in this course. I think they are both masterpieces of film noir.

“See, you are what you are in this world. That’s either one of two things: Either you’re somebody, or you ain’t nobody” – Frank Lucas.

References:

Starbury, A. 2011. Former Drug Kingpin Frank Lucas Faces Jail For Taking Feds For $17K.
http://www.ballerstatus.com/2011/12/14/former-drug-kingpin-frank-lucas-faces-jail-for-taking-feds-for-17k/

Jacobson, M. 2007. Lords of Dopetown.
http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39948/

Macintosh, J. 2010. Druglord ‘Gangster’ Fashion Victim.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/druglord_LQZxAUXJSmgXIOuM2lcQNO

Hinckley, D. 2007. The Real Story of Drug Kingpin Frank Lucas.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/bet-tells-real-story-drug-kingpin-frank-lucas-article-1.227716

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.

“The Birth of a Nation is equal with Brady’s photographs, Lincoln’s speeches, Whitman’s war poems“. These individuals along with DW Griffith were considered men with power. They were men who had the ability to change an entire nation – for better or for worse. Should DW Griffith be held responsible for the lynchings that Birth of a Nation had caused? Should he be blamed for the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan? Was Birth of a Nation a work of art, or a work of evil?

“With great power comes great responsibility”. Majority of the world recognize this phrase from Spiderman. As morbid as it may sound, there is plenty of truth in it. If an average working man stood up on a soapbox in the middle of the streets and shouted his intentions, nobody would listen. On the contrary, if Abraham Lincoln or President Barack Obama stood in the streets and whispered his dreams, an entire nation would listen. It is human nature to be led and to follow; which is why we always have a king, a president, a God, a headmaster or a captain. Only a small percentage of this gargantuan population were born to lead, made to conquer.

From a movie maker’s point of view, Birth of a Nation was a work of art. The cinematography, the music, the lighting, the size of the cast, everything between Caucasian actors playing African-Americans to the costumes being made to look exactly like the Ku Klux Klan’s clown suit with the horses. There was a lot of effort and money put into the movie; and for that alone, I personally think that it should indeed be in the “Greatest Films of All Time” categories. From a controversial point of view, Birth of a Nation directly resulted in the return of the Ku Klux Klan. The question is if this movie should be considered great; “great” – is a matter of opinion; it is subjective. The fact that a 2 hour movie could shape an entire nation; the fact that actors could decide the black man’s fate; the fact that actions scenes with exciting music could result in anarchy and murder, how could Birth of a Nation not be considered great? Some might even argue that “great” is an understatement.

Did DW Griffith know that he had power? Did he know that he was about to cause all this controversy with Birth of a Nation? Personally, I think he did. Personally, I think he knew exactly what he was doing. I do not mean that he wanted to cause racism and create trouble, I am merely saying that he knew the truth and he wanted to make a movie out of the truth. There was probably a lot of racism going around to begin with, and all he wanted to do was make a great movie out of it. If I were in his shoes, I would be torn betweem making a great movie and not making a great movie because it would be controversial. I am a flim maker; I make films. Hence that would be my choice, and so it was Griffith’s as well.

To answer questions directly, no, I do not think that Griffith should be held responsible for the lynchings; no, I do not think that he should be blamed for the return of the Ku Klux Klan; and lastly no, Birth of a Nation was not a work of evil, but a work of art. As mentioned before, it is merely human nature to be led and to follow; but it is also a human right to make a choice. DW Griffith simply made a movie for the human entertaintment. Today, we watch movies about murder and suicide, sex and drugs, discrimination and racism; but we do not follow them. Perhaps it was a different time back then, but I stand by my point. DW Griffith should not be held responsible for he was simply satisfying our need for entertaintment and humor. It is the human weakness of always looking for someone to blame that should be blamed.

Private Parts.

“No, I don’t think so; no. Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn’t get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn’t have explained anything… I don’t think any word can explain a man’s life. No, I guess Rosebud is just a… piece in a jigsaw puzzle… a missing piece.”

Rosebud was William Randolph Hearst’s woman’s private parts. That was what rosebud meant to Orson Welles… or not. “Maybe rosebud was something he couldn’t get, or something he lost”. At the very end of the movie, we found out that rosebud was the name of a sled; and at the very start of the movie, we noticed that little Charles left his sled behind; and then we understood that that sled that he left behind signified everything that he left behind – his childhood, his innocence, his mother and his father. “Maybe rosebud was something he couldn’t get, or something he lost”… Private parts. Aside from the beginning of the movie, we see no signs of “innocence” or even pity from Charles Foster Kane. He worked to get what he wanted, he worked Susan Alexander to get what he wanted, he worked Mr. Bernstein to get what he wanted, he left his wife to get what he wanted. “I am Charles Foster Kane!”. We did get even a glimpse of that little boy who lost his sled, his parents and his simple life of playing in the snow; all we saw was a man who was somewhat selfish and would go out of his way to get what he wanted. “Maybe rosebud was something he couldn’t get, or something he lost”. Maybe, just maybe that Orson Welles had used rosebud for a whole different reason. Rosebud was somebody’s private parts. Throughout the movie, that little boy who lost everything was sort of a “private part” in the great Charles Foster Kane’s life. As mentioned before, we didn’t get even a glimpse of that side of him during his adult years. Perhaps rosebud was Charles Foster Kane’s private part – little Charles. He surpressed that side of him, he ignored that memory of being taken away. Rosebud, private part.

“Maybe rosebud was something he couldn’t get, or something he lost”. In my opinion, rosebud was simply a part of Charles Foster Kane that was lost, or hidden. He kept it submerged somewhere beneathe all the power and the alpha-male dominance. 

‘M’ for Murder and Melodrama.

A melodrama is defined as a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions. In class, we learn that melodramas have a clear image of who is the “good guy” or the “hero” and who is the “bad guy” or the “villian”. M is not a melodrama – I completely agree.

“I can’t help it… I can’t help it… But who will believe me? Who knows what it’s like to be me?”

“Our president who is, I believe, wanted for 3 murders”

“Who are you anyway? Criminals? Criminals who are proud of themselves?”

The last 10 minutes of the film is enough to determine that this is not at all a melodrama. We have no clear cut idea of who is right and who is wrong, who’s the “bad guy” and who’s the “good guy”. In my opinion, this movie has a lot more to do with reality than one would think. In every country, there will be corruption. Also, there is always a judge, a prosecutioner and an executioner. Some religions might question who are the judges and the juries to decide a man’s fate? Who gives them the right to make such drastic changes to one’s life? for it is God or a higher powers that get to decide. Others might say that someone has to do it, regardless of whether they’re religios or not, for God isn’t here to wear a white wig and decide for us. In M, the judges, juries and executioners were all criminals – who cause different forms of crime on a daily basis. They carry guns, break into safes, murder…  In my opinion, they are certainly in no place to decide any man’s fate. Hans Beckert (Peter Lorre) however, commits murder because he has a sickness, a condition. No one in that “courtroom” understands how he feels; his need to kill, the ghosts who follow him around, the shadows… I do not think that he is guilty, but I also do not think that he isn’t. In fact, in simple terms, if I were to decide his fate, I couldn’t. In class, when we were discussing this film, Rashida said that he should be sentenced to death because the moment murder involves kids, it should be punishable. And then Faye argued saying that he shouldn’t because he doesn’t do it on purpose, he can’t help himself. After that, the entire class went on giving their own opinions. Not one more than the other, there was no majority of right or wrong, yes or no, death or freedom. This is further proof that M is not a melodrama.

However, it has to be said that throughout most of the movie up until the last 20 minutes, it could be considered a melodrama. I say this because we did not know that Hans couldn’t help himself until the last 20 minutes. From the very start, all we know was that he was going around killing little kids, and the criminals took up a Robin Hood role of helping the public – even if it was only because Hans was ruining their business. It was only at the last 15 to 20 minuntes when everything changed and our aesthetics had a complete turnaround.

But, in my opinion, considering my points of corrupt and the absence of a clear hero/criminal, I feel that M is not a melodrama.

All I Do Is Dream of You the Whole Night Through.

I. All I Do Is Dream of You the Whole Night Through

This number was one of my favourite scenes in the movie. Not only because it was entertaining, but also because it made a significant difference to the relationship between Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds). Before this number came up, Kathy was practically “making fun” of Don Lockwood – emphasizing how she doesn’t know who he is, how she doesn’t read the magazines or know of the movie stars that everyone else was crazy about. Don felt somewhat insulted by this and his ego was somewhat shattered as well. The entire scene of the both of them in the car made Don rather unhappy and he wasn’t very fond of Kathy at that point. When this number came up, the roles were switched. Kathy was the one being “made fun of” and Don was simply “enjoying the moment”. The very first thing that happened was Kathy bursting out of the cake dressed in all pink; the dance and lyrics were childish in an entertaining way; and only a few moments before this scene, Kathy was talking about doing plays of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet… and there she was dressed in all baby pink doing a cute dance for the movie stars and producers in the room. I personally think this made a significant difference in the movie because it broke that “wall of egos” between Don and Kathy and surely enough, Don and Kathy’s relationship changed completely after this scene. They started conversing without any form of insult and everything only got better after that.

II. Good Mornin’

“Good mornin’, good moooornin”… one of the most used phrases in the English language; and also one of the defining numbers in Singin’ In The Rain. Before Good Mornin’, Don had just witnessed his stardom and his hardwork all come crashing down as his primiere of The Duelling Cavalier was a hit – to rock bottom. Don felt that his career was about to fail because of Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen). But, out of the blue, somebody came up with a brilliant idea of making The Duelling Cavalier a musical (Kathy of course). And suddenly, Don had hope. He saw the light at the end of the tunnel; he saw hope. The phrase “good morning” itself signifies a new day; and a new day signifies hope – hope for a better change, hope for a fresh start; and this was significantly related to Don’s situation.

When the band began to play
the stars were shinin’ bright.
Now the milkman’s on his way,
it’s too late to say goodnight.

So, good mornin’, good mornin’!
Sunbeams will soon smile through,
good mornin’, good mornin’, to you, and you, and you, and you!

Besides that, the lyrics is also largely related to “having hope”. ‘Now the milkman’s on his way, it’s too late to say goodnight’… in my opinion, that particular part of the lyrics was saying that there’s no use crying over spilt milk. The primiere of The Duelling Cavalier was a disaster, but it wouldn’t help at all if Don had continued sulking about it; he would’ve been better off trying to solve the problem instead of sulking about it. ‘So good mornin’, good mornin’ sunbeams will soon smile through’… this, to me, signified that everything was going to be okay again – that Kathy’s idea of turning The Duelling Cavalier into a musical was going to work. The dance choreography of this number was also very cheerful and full of hope & joy.

III. Singing In The Rain

Similar to ‘All I Do Is Dream of You the Whole Night through’, this song also made a significant difference to the relationship between Don and Kathy – only this was the “making point” (the antonym of breaking point) of their relationship. Everyone already knew that Don and Kathy were going to fall in love, but this entire scene including the scene before the number came in confirmed our expectations. In my opinion, this number was needed also for the “hope” factor. This entire scene was cheerful in a romantic way – it made everything seem perfect and in order, as if nothing could go wrong now that Don has Kathy. It was very much needed in the movie because of the audience’s aestethics. Throughout most of the movie, we felt that Don deserved a lot better  but isn’t getting any better because of Lina Lamont. Somewhere inside our minds we were thinking “get rid of Lina already!”. This scene in my opinion satisfied our “internal desire” for things to work out well for once. It made us feel content and satisfied – knowing that everything was working out well, finally. The tap dancing, the little moment with the cop, Don giving his coat away and then cheerfully walks on by… everything about the number were signs of joy and content; and I feel that this was very much needed at that point in the movie after all the trouble Lina had caused.

An Occurance of Aesthetics.

An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge. Admittedly, this is the first black and white movie that I’ve ever watched – aside from the half-colored half-black-and-white Wizard of Oz in Laser Disc form when I was 5. It was certainly different in a lot of ways. As this is the first essay for this course, it isn’t technical or critical; instead it is supposed to be opinionated – and I am all for opinion.

The very first thing that I noticed was the quality of the picture. It might’ve been in black and white, but I realized that the picture was rather clear, almost in high definition at some points. I was quite impressed. I literally raised my eyebrows upon the first movement of the camera from the image that shows the warning sign to the trees and the environment.

And so the story began. I was sitting up straight with my hands on my chin at the start of the movie because I was very interested and curious to know what the story was about. From the very beginning I already knew that someone was going to be hanged, but I didn’t know what was going to happen; hence I sat up straight from the start until the moment he managed to escaped the soldiers. At that point, I already figured that he was going to be running and running so I laid back because I wasn’t as curious of what was going to happen as compared to the start of the movie. However, I did find it rather strange that Peyton Farquhar managed to keep such a straight face at the beginning knowing that he was going to die. It isn’t significant enough to note but it is what came into my mind when I saw the scene, and since this essay is supposed to be opinion based…

So he ran and ran and ran. I was laying  back on my chair as comfortably as ever. I wasn’t “intrigued” by the movie at that point. When he was running in a straight line with the trees all nicely arraged as if it was a pathway made for him to run,  I actually thought of Forest Gump. It looked very similar to when Tom Hanks was running and running and running in one direction. I thought “maybe that’s where they got the idea”.

After an enormous amount of running, he finally stopped at a gate – in which it magically opened itself for him – this is where I got up again with my hands on my chin. I tend to do this when I am expecting or waiting for something to happen. So I sat that way until the moment he saw the girl. I found that scene hilarious. It was almost as if the director ran out of film so he had to reuse the same scenes time and again to make the movie longer. Just when I was about to lay back on my chair – because I thought I already knew how the story was going to end – my eyes opened wide and my eyebrows felt as if they were pushed upwards by Yoda’s force. The ending was sensational. I say this because it was completely unpredictable and it was done in such a way that it left people – or me – in shock; and I found that “awesome”. It’s safe to say that that particular scene, that sudden change of aesthetics was what made my entire opinion of this movie.

Frustration.

Sometimes I feel ridiculously dumb that even adding an image of myself into a blog can be so frustrating. I’ve been blogging for years now but I’ve never added a picture of myself. Well, there’s a first time for everything.