For me, the aspect of Martin Scorsese’s directing in “Gangs of New York” that initially ‘hooked’ me was his frequent use of close-ups. The first shot of the film actually happens to be an extreme close-up of Priest Vallon’s eyes that eventually moves to his chin and neck where it can be seen he is shaving. The sound of the blade against his chin adds dramatic effect to the scene, which eventually leads to yet another extreme close-up of Priest Vallon slicing the side of his chin. This scene instantly intrigues the viewer because one is left wanting to know whom this man is and why he cut his chin. The next close-up in the film is of Bill the Butcher’s industrial style boots. Though initially all the viewer can see is this man’s boots, one can draw the early conclusion that Bill is tough and possibly ruthless. The film progresses to encompass close-ups of Bill’s unique left eye, a music box which character Johnny loots from a burning building, and Amsterdam Vallon’s medallion, which he received from his father, Priest Vallon, at a young age. Because the viewer feels instantly connected to the characters in the film due to the close-ups used, one can not help wanting to know more about the plot and personalities of the characters.
Amsterdam Vallon’s character is typical of Martin Scorsese’s style. There is a very strong similarity between Amsterdam Vallon in “Gangs of New York” and Henry Hill in “Goodfellas.” Both characters experienced a traumatic and intense childhood which ultimately leads them down the path of crime as adults. Henry Hill grows up working at a cab stand which eventually leads to his involvement in the Mob. Also, Henry is physically abused as a child by his father. Though Amsterdam Vallon is not abused in any way by his father, he suffers a highly traumatic event when he witnesses the stabbing and death of his father. As stated by The New York Times, “He returns from a long stint in the Hell Gate Reformatory to his old neighborhood, the Five Points, and finds it ruled by his father's killer, Bill Cutting, known as the Butcher, a swaggering monster who has turned the anniversary of Priest's death into a local holiday.” Because of their childhood experiences, both Henry Hill and Amsterdam Vallon grow up and integrate into a life of crime. Amsterdam Vallon is also a typical character of Martin Scorsese due to the fact that he plays a strong, fearless and relentless male role. Amsterdam shows no fear when challenged to a fight with one of Bill’s fellow gangsters and is relentless in that he would not stop until he acquired the upper hand. He shows no fear when Jenny Everdeane, a skilled female pickpocket, holds a knife to his throat. Instead of backing away from Jenny, Amsterdam steps closer to her with the knife pushing harder into his neck with every move. Amsterdam is also fearless when it comes to love. He knows that he does not need a relationship with Jenny to be happy, but is straightforward with her regardless. Scorsese accentuates the fact that Amsterdam is a strong and unwavering male through the last scene of the movie where he is shown standing with Jenny, overlooking a ruined New York.
I would have to agree that the close-ups did draw the audience in but not in the sense that it kept them curious. I believe that the close-ups were used to put emphasis on the characters so we know they are important. The close-ups only made you wonder why the person being looked at so closely was accented in the first place. The reason the Butcher gets a close up is to draw attention to his fake eye which has an eagle in it. This makes the audience question what happened to this man and what is the significant of the eagle. I don't think that the close-ups were used to make us feel like we are close to the characters as much as they put an exaggeration on their value to the plot.
The reason our group decided to watch: "Gangs of New York", "Shutter Island", and "Aviator" was to show the link between Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio. Scorsese and DiCaprio seem to have a quit a strong relationship and bond with one another and it shows in their array of movies.
In Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" the tensions between the mainlanders and the foreigners is a very violent one. One thing I've always enjoyed about Martin Scorsese's films is how the violence is portrayed. His use of establishing shots and how they linger adds a small hint of suspense. Like in the first battle scene between the New Yorkers and the Dead Rabbits. The Dead Rabbits are led out by The Priest and his members then after they all gather it cuts to an establishing shot of The Five Points. After a few moments of no signs of action or movement we start to see the New Yorkers arrive. Throughout the brutality of that battle there are many close ups, extreme close ups, and medium shots. The viewers get up close and personal with all that is happening. There are a few long shots and crane-like shots to show the extent of the damage. Throughout the entire film whenever there is an act of violence that occurs, Scorsese cuts to either a long shot or an establishing shot/crane shot so that the viewers can take in the surroundings. As most of the violence occurs everyone around them continues with their day as if nothing was happening. That really helps set the mood and the tone of the entire film. Despair and loss of life and blood is a common occurrence in the streets of New York at that time period.
To comment on what Nicole and Lauren said, I do agree that the close ups and extreme close ups help set the film apart, however I don't believe that it keeps the viewer curious. When there are the extreme close ups, like the one on Bill's eye, it helps show that he has already endured violence in his life (because of his eagle replacement eye). I believe that the close ups set the mood of what is happening on the screen. One thing I've always loved about the Martin Scorsese/Leonardo DiCaprio team up is that it's two incredible talents in one. Scorsese is an incredible film director and DiCaprio is a believable and dedicated actor. Amsterdam's difficult life and all his anger bottled inside cause internal conflicts and fuel his want and need to get revenge. DiCaprio portrays those emotions perfectly and as the viewer you can almost feel what he's feeling because of how Scorsese can so beautifully capture every emotion. The close ups help us as the viewers put ourselves in the character's shoes. Whether it be Amsterdam's turmoil or Bill Cunning's power and arrogance, or even in Jenny's fear as the knives are half blindly thrown at her.
I agree with Jessica on the violence factor in Scorsese films. Part of what makes them so exciting and captivating is the fact that the violence plays such a big role. His movies wouldn't be the same with out it. Not sure how a close up sets the mood though...?
In the movie "gangs of new York" I think that the use of close ups are used to make it more dramiatic and to help the plot move along and get more details like the eagal on the butchers eye that tells the viewer the battle is over between the butcher and the vallons when they did a close up of the eye open and then closing because he was dead it wa showing how the battle between them is over. I agree that the close ups were used not to make the viewer curious as to why the eagal on the eye for example is important and they are used to extend the importance of certain people and things.
To offer an explination to Lauren I think that close ups could possibly help set the mood by intensifying different details, or zooming in in somethin so you can't see the big picture so it makes you curious as to what's happening maybe? I aslo agree that violence is a big factor in Scorsese films making them more captivating and exciting.
Lauren, to clarify what I meant by how the close ups set the mood, I didn't mean in the overall plot or scene, I meant that we as the viewers can feel the mood that the character is currently experiencing. For example when there's a close up on Amsterdam when he looks upon Bill "The Butcher" for the first time since his father's death, we can almost instantly feel the anger that's been building inside of him for 15 years. Hopefully that can clarify things for you.
Thank you for clarifying Jessica. :) That makes a lot more sense now. 15 years is a long time to hold that amount of anger inside of you. I think that because of the circumstances Amsterdam was in, we can understand why he would hold such a huge grudge and attempt to seek revenge on the Butcher.
You're very welcome Lauren :). This concept of the close ups to show the character's emotional reaction to the events in the movie carries over to our second film, "Shutter Island". Scorsese's newest film certainly does not disappoint; as he usually does with DiCaprio movies there are twists and turns and emotion packed plots and characters. Without giving away too many details (wouldn't want to ruin the film for anyone that hasn't seen it). The plot surrounds Teddy Daniels, a State Marshal, that is investigating an escape by a "patient" on Shutter Island (a maximum security prison for the criminally insane). Like I was saying before, Scrosese's use of close ups are what essentially capture all the emotion in the film. For example, when Teddy as flashbacks to his dead wife, this sad and somber look takes over and you can almost feel how broken and sad he is about the loss of his wife, Dolores. I would have to say, to all that have not seen this movie, go see it.
I partly agree with Jessica on the fact that close-ups are an essential way in which Martin Scorsese expresses emotional reactions and tensions in his films, however the close-ups in “Shutter Island” were not memorable. I did not notice nearly as many close-ups in “Shutter Island” as I did in “Gangs of New York,” therefore leaving less of an impact on the overall feeling of the movie. On a separate note, I thoroughly enjoyed the fact that “Shutter Island” was a psychological thriller. The plot always left me guessing from Scorsese’s use of restricted narration. The viewer is lulled into a false state of understanding after following character Edward Daniels as he attempts to solve a missing patient report for a greater part of the movie. We believe we know equal to what the main character knows. However, all of our expectations, predictions and understanding is dashed when it is revealed that Daniels is actually one of the patients at the institution (Sorry for the spoiler). I also thought it was an interesting move on Scorsese’s part to include delusions and hallucinations in his movie. Though this could have been a risky move potentially leading to a great deal of confusion for the viewer, he explains it perfectly when he reveals who Edward Daniels truly is.
I would have to agree Jessica Map. I believe the close ups show the character’s emotional reaction to the events in the movie. For example, if you pay close attention to Chuck throughout the cinematic adventure, you will notice how many times he is panic stricken when Teddy gets closer and closer to figuring out what is going on. I don’t agree that there are more close ups in “Gangs of New York” than there are in “Shutter Island”. In fact, when I was “Shutter Island” for the second time, I noticed the opposite. The use of restricted narration was nothing short from amazing. It kept the crowd guessing and in utter disbelief at the end of the film when we find out what is really going on. I individualistically loved the scene where Teddy and Chuck are roaming around in ward C and one of the patients comes out of no where, tags one of them and says, “Tag, you’re it!” This memorable scene really helps lighten the mood. Another unforgettable quote was at the end of the movie when Teddy turns to Chuck after they presume they got through to him and he says, “Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man? “ I believe this leaves the audience in shock and something to really think about.
To Nicole's comment...I disagree with the amount of close ups that were memorable in "Gangs Of New York" versus "Shutter Island". If you were to watch "Gangs Of New York" in it's entirety, then you'd see that there are only few truly memorable close ups. After seeing "Shutter Island" for a second time, the more I realize how many of those close up scenes are still stuck in my mind. The main one is the close up/bird's eye view shot of the officer at the concentration came with half his face blown away, or the close ups on Teddy seeing the dead children, or the awkward glances between Chuck and the doctor, or all the sideways looks shared among the staff, and the close ups on DiCaprio in his WWII flashbacks. And when I say close ups...I'm talking about on people specifically, not on objects. And I'm sure that Lauren Ashley could name off a few more memorable ones.
On another note...I personally don't see why you'd completely give away the surprise twist at the end of the movie...therefore completely ruining it for anyone who hasn't and wanted to see it. But that's just my opinion.
The other thing that I noticed about "Shutter Island" is the use of diegetic sound. Throughout all the really tense scenes in the movie, or the suspenseful ones, there is a use of diegetic sound only. During Teddy's flashbacks, there is the same eerie feeling non-diegetic music playing. For an example....the sound of a match lighting is over amplified to really put the viewers in the same place as the characters.
In response to Jessica’s comment about the over amplified sound of a match being lit, I too noticed this, in addition to several other effects that foreshadowed the reason why Edward Daniels resides in Shutter Island’s mental institution. We learn early in the film from Daniels that the match relates to an apartment fire that took the life of his wife. However, at the end of the film with another twist of events, we learn this story is false, but still important due to the fact that Daniels fabricated it while in denial of the true death of his wife. During his dreams and flashbacks of his wife, especially in the first dream of his wife, we see that her hair is wet and when she tells Edward she must go he finds himself with water pouring out of his hands. The significance of water in the film comes into play when the viewer learns Daniels children were drowned by his wife. In the same dream as Daniels is holding his wife in his arms, blood pours from her stomach. This foreshadows when Daniels murders his wife. These are just a few of the numerous examples of foreshadowing elements in the film.
One of my favorite close ups that really has nothing to do with the plot of the movie at all is when Teddy first gets to “Shutter Island” with Chuck, he glances over at a woman with in the institution and she has a huge cut around her neck, huge blue eyes, almost no hair, she is skinny and frail and when she gets Teddy’s attention, she puts her hand to her mouth as if to tell him to be quiet. If there is anything significant about this close up besides being creepy, I missed it. I really like Nicole’s observation about the water being significant of the water that his kids were drowned in. I also think the water was symbolic for the island too. Did anyone catch why Teddy had a bandage on his head throughout the film?
Lauren, I too am confused as to why Daniels had a bandage on his head throughout the film. I don't believe there is ever a direct explanation. The only thing I can think of is that it is a simple plot device. Although it may be subtle, Scorsese could be using the bandage to foreshadow Daniels real character who we only learn about in the ending of the film. The bandage signifies a simple injury, but alludes to a deeper problem that lies within his mind. I also noticed at the end of the film that the bandage was gone. This could signify the truth about Daniels real personality is out and that there's no need to hide it any longer. It may be a stretch, but its the only explanation I could think of.
To agree with Lauren I have to say one of my favorite shot in the movie Shutter Island is also with the woman that puts her finger to her mouth to be quiet, i do think its quite creepy but I also think it might have been added in the movie because so far in the movie you see the "crazy" people walking around but don't see the extent of the problems they have. It could also be used to foreshadow how later in the movie the main character Chuck doesn't really have a voice because he is just like the rest of them trapped on the island for the rest of there lives. I also like the observations that Nicole made about the foreshadowing elements from his flashbacks, I knew they came back into play but that connection just made it alot clearer for me.
i said chuck as teddy's name in the first comment...oops. just switch that around. And Even though it is a stretch, talking about what Lauren brought up with the bandage on Teddy's head i have to agree with Nicole that it is a symbol that is covering up the real problem that he has. The movie doesnt have many shocking scary parts but the ones it does have really make an impact like the "Tag, your it!" although shocking it kind of has a creepy way of lightening the mood and putting you at the edge of your seat at the same time. Which i thought i would point out because it is such an odd combinations of emotions to feel all at one, you want to laugh, cringe and want to see what's going to pop out next all at the same time. I also like Nicoles observation about the water around the island and the connection to the water teddy's kids were drowned in.
Nicole I thing you’re onto something.. I think your idea makes perfect sense. Maybe the bandage disappears towards the end of the film because we know he is the institution and it isn't needed anymore. I'm really not sure either. Do you remember if there was a mark on his forehead after the bandage was gone?
After thinking about the bandage more, I think it has more of a symbolic meaning. I think the bandage is there to show all of the pain and hardships that Teddy went through. Teddy lost his three children and his wife all in the same day. After finding out that his wife killed his children by drowning them in the pond in there back yard, he took her life with his gun. Teddy lost his job and was sent to an insane asylum. I think the bandage is significant for those reasons.
I would agree with Lauren on that part about the bandage, and plus that injury could've come from anywhere, not necessarily the mental institution.
Now, The Aviator, was a very interesting movie. The life of Howard Hughes was an intriguing one to say the least. I'd have to say that all aspects of his life seemed amazing, on the surface atleast. I can't help but wonder what else he suffered from, I mean it's quite clear he suffered from some very severe OCD.
A note about the cinematic styling is that I noticed Scorsese's use of the long shots and establishing shots during the flight scenes. Those were incredible to watch. One in particular that I liked was when they were filming "Hells Angels" and Hughes went up in the plane with the cameras. It's a long shot of all the planes flying and doing aerial stunts then it quickly switches to a close up shot of Hughes with the camera, then an extreme close up of the camera getting knocked off the plane. A memorable scene for me.
A side note, this film helped show how versatile that Leonardo DiCaprio is. I'm impressed with all the different people he can portray
I would have to agree with Jessica on the fact that Howard Hughes suffers from a severe case of OCD. Hand washing is one of the most common compulsions among sufferers and is depicted in the movie several times. This compulsion, though severe, is only a fraction of Hughes’ larger obsession: germs. Throughout the film, Hughes constantly makes sure to keep his distance from any possible source or germs (pushing a dirty napkin under a table in the opening scenes, asking his coworker to brush a crumb off his lapel before they continue their conversation, etc.) and only breaches this trend when he realizes he must keep his composure in front of one of the state’s well-known politicians.
With my knowledge after taking AP Psychology last semester, I would also venture to say that Howard Hughes suffered from paranoid schizophrenia in addition to OCD. At a few points scattered throughout the movie Hughes claims that he “sees things.” This would mean he is having hallucinations which are characteristic of general schizophrenia. When getting ready for court in his home, Hughes stares at the water coming out of the faucet until the woman helping him tells him not to be afraid and that “nothing is there.” At this point he again repeats that he “sees things,” thus he is paranoid that ‘something’ (which very well could be germs) is out to harm him. I enjoyed the fact that Scorsese incorporated psychological aspects into the Aviator, just as he did in Shutter Island.
I agree with Jessica completely on the fact that Howard Hughes had an extremely interesting life. Part of what made him so interesting to me was his severe OCD. When I was little I used to think having OCD was kind of cool. I thought having it would mean my room was always immaculate and my handwriting would be perfect. I now know it runs much deeper than that and controls and consumes so much of your time. Howard was the perfect example of an extreme case of OCD.
One thing I noticed from a cinematic aspect was yet again the close ups that Martin uses throughout the film. Every time Hughes was having one of his episodes and kept repeating himself over and over again, the camera would get really close to his face to make his facial expression really clear and enforce how dramatic it was even for Hughes.
That’s funny Jessica… I remember saying something about how versatile Leo’s roles are to you and Suzie…
Nicole, I too took a psychology class, not AP but I’m sure I got the overall gist of it. I don’t really think that because we took the classes we did that we can just diagnose people with things. I mean, my Dad’s fiancé is a psychology degree and she doesn’t even do that. I think its best we just stick with the facts. :)
My previous comment was not meant to be a diagnosis, but merely an opinion. I conducted some research and found that others agree Howard Hughes suffered from schizophrenia. His eccentric behavior in the latter years of his life suggests he suffered from OCD, bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia according to the IMDB biographical archive of Howard Hughes. On About.com in a biography of Howard Hughes I found it interesting that throughout his childhood his mother was obsessed with his health after Hughes suffered from an illness that caused temporary paralysis. This is what led to Hughes' OCD and obsession with germs. With the brain damage Hughes had endured throughout his life in plane crashes in addition to his obsessive compulsive disorder going untreated for so long, Hughes' OCD eventually morphed into the more severe psychological disorder of paranoid schizophrenia.
One of the most compelling scenes of the movie is Scorsese’s depiction of Hughes’ life in the theater. Throughout the scene the viewer feels sympathy for Hughes because one can tell that his psychological disorder is overpowering and overwhelming. I found myself wishing Hughes could somehow pull himself out of his dire psychological state and the reclusive situation so he could stand up to his competitor, Pan Am and ensure the success of TWA. Scorsese uses low key lighting to produce high contrast to make the scene feel lonely and dim. The constant red flashing light at the top of the door that Hughes fails to ever turn off gives a feeling of turmoil to the scene. Its repetition may signify Hughes’ psychological state; although he is strong and focused at times, his disorder never fails to reappear.
i had to laugh at Lauren's comment on how when she was little she used to think that OCD was cool because your room was always neat and things like that because I remember my mom talking about a women who compulsively cleaned and wished i could be more like that because i am not like that but now i know being OCD is not something to ask for...
and I also remember you saying how versitile Leo's roles are Lauren, but it is a very good point. He is a very impressive actor.
and as for diagnosing Hughes i think i would just leave that to the professionals i dont think were in any place to say even if we have taken ap or a regular psych class. but everyone is entitled to an opinion and i think research is persuasive to say classifying as to what is wrong with him exactly.
I agree with Nicole that the theatre scene with Hughes is the most compelling scene in the movie. In this scene you see how much his mental state effects him and how he functions. This is the part of the movie, at least for me, that made me realize how detrimental his condition was to his life, showing how even though everyone around him kept moving forward he was stuck in the same space not able to snap out of the psychological state. this scene is where you see the most sympathy from the audience show through because we all are watching, waiting and hoping for by some miracle he can come out of it.
This is my seventh year teaching film, and ninth overall. I got my B.A. in journalism in 1998 from the University of Minnesota, then worked as a sports writer at The Star Tribune for awhile. I eventually went back to the U for my master's degree in English education, and started teaching in 2001.
I live in Minneapolis with Susan (wife, works at General Mills), Jack (son, born in August '08), and Gunnar (dog, a PBGV -- look it up).
28 comments:
For me, the aspect of Martin Scorsese’s directing in “Gangs of New York” that initially ‘hooked’ me was his frequent use of close-ups. The first shot of the film actually happens to be an extreme close-up of Priest Vallon’s eyes that eventually moves to his chin and neck where it can be seen he is shaving. The sound of the blade against his chin adds dramatic effect to the scene, which eventually leads to yet another extreme close-up of Priest Vallon slicing the side of his chin. This scene instantly intrigues the viewer because one is left wanting to know whom this man is and why he cut his chin. The next close-up in the film is of Bill the Butcher’s industrial style boots. Though initially all the viewer can see is this man’s boots, one can draw the early conclusion that Bill is tough and possibly ruthless. The film progresses to encompass close-ups of Bill’s unique left eye, a music box which character Johnny loots from a burning building, and Amsterdam Vallon’s medallion, which he received from his father, Priest Vallon, at a young age. Because the viewer feels instantly connected to the characters in the film due to the close-ups used, one can not help wanting to know more about the plot and personalities of the characters.
Nicole G
Hour 1
Amsterdam Vallon’s character is typical of Martin Scorsese’s style. There is a very strong similarity between Amsterdam Vallon in “Gangs of New York” and Henry Hill in “Goodfellas.” Both characters experienced a traumatic and intense childhood which ultimately leads them down the path of crime as adults. Henry Hill grows up working at a cab stand which eventually leads to his involvement in the Mob. Also, Henry is physically abused as a child by his father. Though Amsterdam Vallon is not abused in any way by his father, he suffers a highly traumatic event when he witnesses the stabbing and death of his father. As stated by The New York Times, “He returns from a long stint in the Hell Gate Reformatory to his old neighborhood, the Five Points, and finds it ruled by his father's killer, Bill Cutting, known as the Butcher, a swaggering monster who has turned the anniversary of Priest's death into a local holiday.” Because of their childhood experiences, both Henry Hill and Amsterdam Vallon grow up and integrate into a life of crime. Amsterdam Vallon is also a typical character of Martin Scorsese due to the fact that he plays a strong, fearless and relentless male role. Amsterdam shows no fear when challenged to a fight with one of Bill’s fellow gangsters and is relentless in that he would not stop until he acquired the upper hand. He shows no fear when Jenny Everdeane, a skilled female pickpocket, holds a knife to his throat. Instead of backing away from Jenny, Amsterdam steps closer to her with the knife pushing harder into his neck with every move. Amsterdam is also fearless when it comes to love. He knows that he does not need a relationship with Jenny to be happy, but is straightforward with her regardless. Scorsese accentuates the fact that Amsterdam is a strong and unwavering male through the last scene of the movie where he is shown standing with Jenny, overlooking a ruined New York.
Nicole G
Hour 1
I would have to agree that the close-ups did draw the audience in but not in the sense that it kept them curious. I believe that the close-ups were used to put emphasis on the characters so we know they are important. The close-ups only made you wonder why the person being looked at so closely was accented in the first place. The reason the Butcher gets a close up is to draw attention to his fake eye which has an eagle in it. This makes the audience question what happened to this man and what is the significant of the eagle. I don't think that the close-ups were used to make us feel like we are close to the characters as much as they put an exaggeration on their value to the plot.
The reason our group decided to watch: "Gangs of New York", "Shutter Island", and "Aviator" was to show the link between Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio. Scorsese and DiCaprio seem to have a quit a strong relationship and bond with one another and it shows in their array of movies.
In Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" the tensions between the mainlanders and the foreigners is a very violent one. One thing I've always enjoyed about Martin Scorsese's films is how the violence is portrayed. His use of establishing shots and how they linger adds a small hint of suspense. Like in the first battle scene between the New Yorkers and the Dead Rabbits. The Dead Rabbits are led out by The Priest and his members then after they all gather it cuts to an establishing shot of The Five Points. After a few moments of no signs of action or movement we start to see the New Yorkers arrive. Throughout the brutality of that battle there are many close ups, extreme close ups, and medium shots. The viewers get up close and personal with all that is happening. There are a few long shots and crane-like shots to show the extent of the damage. Throughout the entire film whenever there is an act of violence that occurs, Scorsese cuts to either a long shot or an establishing shot/crane shot so that the viewers can take in the surroundings. As most of the violence occurs everyone around them continues with their day as if nothing was happening. That really helps set the mood and the tone of the entire film. Despair and loss of life and blood is a common occurrence in the streets of New York at that time period.
To comment on what Nicole and Lauren said, I do agree that the close ups and extreme close ups help set the film apart, however I don't believe that it keeps the viewer curious. When there are the extreme close ups, like the one on Bill's eye, it helps show that he has already endured violence in his life (because of his eagle replacement eye). I believe that the close ups set the mood of what is happening on the screen. One thing I've always loved about the Martin Scorsese/Leonardo DiCaprio team up is that it's two incredible talents in one. Scorsese is an incredible film director and DiCaprio is a believable and dedicated actor. Amsterdam's difficult life and all his anger bottled inside cause internal conflicts and fuel his want and need to get revenge. DiCaprio portrays those emotions perfectly and as the viewer you can almost feel what he's feeling because of how Scorsese can so beautifully capture every emotion. The close ups help us as the viewers put ourselves in the character's shoes. Whether it be Amsterdam's turmoil or Bill Cunning's power and arrogance, or even in Jenny's fear as the knives are half blindly thrown at her.
I agree with Jessica on the violence factor in Scorsese films. Part of what makes them so exciting and captivating is the fact that the violence plays such a big role. His movies wouldn't be the same with out it. Not sure how a close up sets the mood though...?
In the movie "gangs of new York" I think that the use of close ups are used to make it more dramiatic and to help the plot move along and get more details like the eagal on the butchers eye that tells the viewer the battle is over between the butcher and the vallons when they did a close up of the eye open and then closing because he was dead it wa showing how the battle between them is over. I agree that the close ups were used not to make the viewer curious as to why the eagal on the eye for example is important and they are used to extend the importance of certain people and things.
To offer an explination to Lauren I think that close ups could possibly help set the mood by intensifying different details, or zooming in in somethin so you can't see the big picture so it makes you curious as to what's happening maybe? I aslo agree that violence is a big factor in Scorsese films making them more captivating and exciting.
Lauren, to clarify what I meant by how the close ups set the mood, I didn't mean in the overall plot or scene, I meant that we as the viewers can feel the mood that the character is currently experiencing. For example when there's a close up on Amsterdam when he looks upon Bill "The Butcher" for the first time since his father's death, we can almost instantly feel the anger that's been building inside of him for 15 years.
Hopefully that can clarify things for you.
Thank you for clarifying Jessica. :) That makes a lot more sense now. 15 years is a long time to hold that amount of anger inside of you. I think that because of the circumstances Amsterdam was in, we can understand why he would hold such a huge grudge and attempt to seek revenge on the Butcher.
You're very welcome Lauren :). This concept of the close ups to show the character's emotional reaction to the events in the movie carries over to our second film, "Shutter Island". Scorsese's newest film certainly does not disappoint; as he usually does with DiCaprio movies there are twists and turns and emotion packed plots and characters. Without giving away too many details (wouldn't want to ruin the film for anyone that hasn't seen it). The plot surrounds Teddy Daniels, a State Marshal, that is investigating an escape by a "patient" on Shutter Island (a maximum security prison for the criminally insane). Like I was saying before, Scrosese's use of close ups are what essentially capture all the emotion in the film. For example, when Teddy as flashbacks to his dead wife, this sad and somber look takes over and you can almost feel how broken and sad he is about the loss of his wife, Dolores. I would have to say, to all that have not seen this movie, go see it.
Jessy Robins
2nd hour
I partly agree with Jessica on the fact that close-ups are an essential way in which Martin Scorsese expresses emotional reactions and tensions in his films, however the close-ups in “Shutter Island” were not memorable. I did not notice nearly as many close-ups in “Shutter Island” as I did in “Gangs of New York,” therefore leaving less of an impact on the overall feeling of the movie. On a separate note, I thoroughly enjoyed the fact that “Shutter Island” was a psychological thriller. The plot always left me guessing from Scorsese’s use of restricted narration. The viewer is lulled into a false state of understanding after following character Edward Daniels as he attempts to solve a missing patient report for a greater part of the movie. We believe we know equal to what the main character knows. However, all of our expectations, predictions and understanding is dashed when it is revealed that Daniels is actually one of the patients at the institution (Sorry for the spoiler). I also thought it was an interesting move on Scorsese’s part to include delusions and hallucinations in his movie. Though this could have been a risky move potentially leading to a great deal of confusion for the viewer, he explains it perfectly when he reveals who Edward Daniels truly is.
Nicole G
Hour 1
I would have to agree Jessica Map. I believe the close ups show the character’s emotional reaction to the events in the movie. For example, if you pay close attention to Chuck throughout the cinematic adventure, you will notice how many times he is panic stricken when Teddy gets closer and closer to figuring out what is going on. I don’t agree that there are more close ups in “Gangs of New York” than there are in “Shutter Island”. In fact, when I was “Shutter Island” for the second time, I noticed the opposite. The use of restricted narration was nothing short from amazing. It kept the crowd guessing and in utter disbelief at the end of the film when we find out what is really going on. I individualistically loved the scene where Teddy and Chuck are roaming around in ward C and one of the patients comes out of no where, tags one of them and says, “Tag, you’re it!” This memorable scene really helps lighten the mood. Another unforgettable quote was at the end of the movie when Teddy turns to Chuck after they presume they got through to him and he says, “Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man? “ I believe this leaves the audience in shock and something to really think about.
To Nicole's comment...I disagree with the amount of close ups that were memorable in "Gangs Of New York" versus "Shutter Island". If you were to watch "Gangs Of New York" in it's entirety, then you'd see that there are only few truly memorable close ups. After seeing "Shutter Island" for a second time, the more I realize how many of those close up scenes are still stuck in my mind. The main one is the close up/bird's eye view shot of the officer at the concentration came with half his face blown away, or the close ups on Teddy seeing the dead children, or the awkward glances between Chuck and the doctor, or all the sideways looks shared among the staff, and the close ups on DiCaprio in his WWII flashbacks. And when I say close ups...I'm talking about on people specifically, not on objects. And I'm sure that Lauren Ashley could name off a few more memorable ones.
On another note...I personally don't see why you'd completely give away the surprise twist at the end of the movie...therefore completely ruining it for anyone who hasn't and wanted to see it. But that's just my opinion.
The other thing that I noticed about "Shutter Island" is the use of diegetic sound. Throughout all the really tense scenes in the movie, or the suspenseful ones, there is a use of diegetic sound only. During Teddy's flashbacks, there is the same eerie feeling non-diegetic music playing. For an example....the sound of a match lighting is over amplified to really put the viewers in the same place as the characters.
In response to Jessica’s comment about the over amplified sound of a match being lit, I too noticed this, in addition to several other effects that foreshadowed the reason why Edward Daniels resides in Shutter Island’s mental institution. We learn early in the film from Daniels that the match relates to an apartment fire that took the life of his wife. However, at the end of the film with another twist of events, we learn this story is false, but still important due to the fact that Daniels fabricated it while in denial of the true death of his wife. During his dreams and flashbacks of his wife, especially in the first dream of his wife, we see that her hair is wet and when she tells Edward she must go he finds himself with water pouring out of his hands. The significance of water in the film comes into play when the viewer learns Daniels children were drowned by his wife. In the same dream as Daniels is holding his wife in his arms, blood pours from her stomach. This foreshadows when Daniels murders his wife. These are just a few of the numerous examples of foreshadowing elements in the film.
Nicole G
Hour 1
One of my favorite close ups that really has nothing to do with the plot of the movie at all is when Teddy first gets to “Shutter Island” with Chuck, he glances over at a woman with in the institution and she has a huge cut around her neck, huge blue eyes, almost no hair, she is skinny and frail and when she gets Teddy’s attention, she puts her hand to her mouth as if to tell him to be quiet. If there is anything significant about this close up besides being creepy, I missed it. I really like Nicole’s observation about the water being significant of the water that his kids were drowned in. I also think the water was symbolic for the island too. Did anyone catch why Teddy had a bandage on his head throughout the film?
Lauren, I too am confused as to why Daniels had a bandage on his head throughout the film. I don't believe there is ever a direct explanation. The only thing I can think of is that it is a simple plot device. Although it may be subtle, Scorsese could be using the bandage to foreshadow Daniels real character who we only learn about in the ending of the film. The bandage signifies a simple injury, but alludes to a deeper problem that lies within his mind. I also noticed at the end of the film that the bandage was gone. This could signify the truth about Daniels real personality is out and that there's no need to hide it any longer. It may be a stretch, but its the only explanation I could think of.
Nicole G
Hour 1
To agree with Lauren I have to say one of my favorite shot in the movie Shutter Island is also with the woman that puts her finger to her mouth to be quiet, i do think its quite creepy but I also think it might have been added in the movie because so far in the movie you see the "crazy" people walking around but don't see the extent of the problems they have. It could also be used to foreshadow how later in the movie the main character Chuck doesn't really have a voice because he is just like the rest of them trapped on the island for the rest of there lives. I also like the observations that Nicole made about the foreshadowing elements from his flashbacks, I knew they came back into play but that connection just made it alot clearer for me.
i said chuck as teddy's name in the first comment...oops. just switch that around. And Even though it is a stretch, talking about what Lauren brought up with the bandage on Teddy's head i have to agree with Nicole that it is a symbol that is covering up the real problem that he has. The movie doesnt have many shocking scary parts but the ones it does have really make an impact like the "Tag, your it!" although shocking it kind of has a creepy way of lightening the mood and putting you at the edge of your seat at the same time. Which i thought i would point out because it is such an odd combinations of emotions to feel all at one, you want to laugh, cringe and want to see what's going to pop out next all at the same time. I also like Nicoles observation about the water around the island and the connection to the water teddy's kids were drowned in.
Nicole I thing you’re onto something.. I think your idea makes perfect sense. Maybe the bandage disappears towards the end of the film because we know he is the institution and it isn't needed anymore. I'm really not sure either. Do you remember if there was a mark on his forehead after the bandage was gone?
After thinking about the bandage more, I think it has more of a symbolic meaning. I think the bandage is there to show all of the pain and hardships that Teddy went through. Teddy lost his three children and his wife all in the same day. After finding out that his wife killed his children by drowning them in the pond in there back yard, he took her life with his gun. Teddy lost his job and was sent to an insane asylum. I think the bandage is significant for those reasons.
I would agree with Lauren on that part about the bandage, and plus that injury could've come from anywhere, not necessarily the mental institution.
Now, The Aviator, was a very interesting movie. The life of Howard Hughes was an intriguing one to say the least. I'd have to say that all aspects of his life seemed amazing, on the surface atleast. I can't help but wonder what else he suffered from, I mean it's quite clear he suffered from some very severe OCD.
A note about the cinematic styling is that I noticed Scorsese's use of the long shots and establishing shots during the flight scenes. Those were incredible to watch. One in particular that I liked was when they were filming "Hells Angels" and Hughes went up in the plane with the cameras. It's a long shot of all the planes flying and doing aerial stunts then it quickly switches to a close up shot of Hughes with the camera, then an extreme close up of the camera getting knocked off the plane. A memorable scene for me.
A side note, this film helped show how versatile that Leonardo DiCaprio is. I'm impressed with all the different people he can portray
I would have to agree with Jessica on the fact that Howard Hughes suffers from a severe case of OCD. Hand washing is one of the most common compulsions among sufferers and is depicted in the movie several times. This compulsion, though severe, is only a fraction of Hughes’ larger obsession: germs. Throughout the film, Hughes constantly makes sure to keep his distance from any possible source or germs (pushing a dirty napkin under a table in the opening scenes, asking his coworker to brush a crumb off his lapel before they continue their conversation, etc.) and only breaches this trend when he realizes he must keep his composure in front of one of the state’s well-known politicians.
With my knowledge after taking AP Psychology last semester, I would also venture to say that Howard Hughes suffered from paranoid schizophrenia in addition to OCD. At a few points scattered throughout the movie Hughes claims that he “sees things.” This would mean he is having hallucinations which are characteristic of general schizophrenia. When getting ready for court in his home, Hughes stares at the water coming out of the faucet until the woman helping him tells him not to be afraid and that “nothing is there.” At this point he again repeats that he “sees things,” thus he is paranoid that ‘something’ (which very well could be germs) is out to harm him. I enjoyed the fact that Scorsese incorporated psychological aspects into the Aviator, just as he did in Shutter Island.
I agree with Jessica completely on the fact that Howard Hughes had an extremely interesting life. Part of what made him so interesting to me was his severe OCD. When I was little I used to think having OCD was kind of cool. I thought having it would mean my room was always immaculate and my handwriting would be perfect. I now know it runs much deeper than that and controls and consumes so much of your time. Howard was the perfect example of an extreme case of OCD.
One thing I noticed from a cinematic aspect was yet again the close ups that Martin uses throughout the film. Every time Hughes was having one of his episodes and kept repeating himself over and over again, the camera would get really close to his face to make his facial expression really clear and enforce how dramatic it was even for Hughes.
That’s funny Jessica… I remember saying something about how versatile Leo’s roles are to you and Suzie…
Nicole, I too took a psychology class, not AP but I’m sure I got the overall gist of it. I don’t really think that because we took the classes we did that we can just diagnose people with things. I mean, my Dad’s fiancé is a psychology degree and she doesn’t even do that. I think its best we just stick with the facts. :)
My previous comment was not meant to be a diagnosis, but merely an opinion. I conducted some research and found that others agree Howard Hughes suffered from schizophrenia. His eccentric behavior in the latter years of his life suggests he suffered from OCD, bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia according to the IMDB biographical archive of Howard Hughes. On About.com in a biography of Howard Hughes I found it interesting that throughout his childhood his mother was obsessed with his health after Hughes suffered from an illness that caused temporary paralysis. This is what led to Hughes' OCD and obsession with germs. With the brain damage Hughes had endured throughout his life in plane crashes in addition to his obsessive compulsive disorder going untreated for so long, Hughes' OCD eventually morphed into the more severe psychological disorder of paranoid schizophrenia.
One of the most compelling scenes of the movie is Scorsese’s depiction of Hughes’ life in the theater. Throughout the scene the viewer feels sympathy for Hughes because one can tell that his psychological disorder is overpowering and overwhelming. I found myself wishing Hughes could somehow pull himself out of his dire psychological state and the reclusive situation so he could stand up to his competitor, Pan Am and ensure the success of TWA. Scorsese uses low key lighting to produce high contrast to make the scene feel lonely and dim. The constant red flashing light at the top of the door that Hughes fails to ever turn off gives a feeling of turmoil to the scene. Its repetition may signify Hughes’ psychological state; although he is strong and focused at times, his disorder never fails to reappear.
i had to laugh at Lauren's comment on how when she was little she used to think that OCD was cool because your room was always neat and things like that because I remember my mom talking about a women who compulsively cleaned and wished i could be more like that because i am not like that but now i know being OCD is not something to ask for...
and I also remember you saying how versitile Leo's roles are Lauren, but it is a very good point. He is a very impressive actor.
and as for diagnosing Hughes i think i would just leave that to the professionals i dont think were in any place to say even if we have taken ap or a regular psych class. but everyone is entitled to an opinion and i think research is persuasive to say classifying as to what is wrong with him exactly.
I agree with Nicole that the theatre scene with Hughes is the most compelling scene in the movie. In this scene you see how much his mental state effects him and how he functions. This is the part of the movie, at least for me, that made me realize how detrimental his condition was to his life, showing how even though everyone around him kept moving forward he was stuck in the same space not able to snap out of the psychological state. this scene is where you see the most sympathy from the audience show through because we all are watching, waiting and hoping for by some miracle he can come out of it.
Post a Comment