New name!

How exciting, this blog has a new name! Let me know what you think! And until my next post, just bask in the fact that Cougar Town got picked up, despite being under a new show runner, by TBS. Yay!!

Snow White and the Huntsman

Please be aware, this review contains spoilers.

The trend for retelling fairy tales in recent years, while popular, has seemed to me to have produced mostly mediocre works that attempt to pull major twists on genre, plot or characterization, and often fall quite short (Beastly, Red Riding Hood, Mirror Mirror, etc. to name a few). Fairy tales focus on the psyche, and use the fantastical to project our own fears, wishes and personalities onto a safe screen to deal with them. Unfortunately, most of the recent re-tellings do not succeed in this. While there have been exceptions to this rule, (for example, Tangled, which I discuss later), for the most part, these films have been focused on glitz and glamor versus a more substantial engagement with the purpose and use of fairy tales. Snow White and the Huntsman is no different in this regard, except for perhaps the number of people that will go see it due to its star power and production budget. As an avid lover of fairy tales, I am unashamed to admit that Snow White was one of the films that I most looked forward to for this summer. Potential for strong female leads, a wonderful looking trailer due to an elaborate and intricate production design, and a strong cast (say what you will about Twilight, anyone who can make Bella Swan remotely human is a good actress), Snow White held a lot of promise. However, it is clear that in the case of this film, once again, all the focus went in to making the film very glossy, and very little went into the actual story. The scripts is one of the worst that I have experienced, with little for Stewart, Theron, and Hemsworth to do, as none of them are given tasks up to their abilities. There are layers hinted at for the characters, particularly Ravenna (the evil queen), and the Huntsman, however they are only hints at dark and torturous, and are left unexplored and un-characterized in favor of detailing the world and its minutia. I am a huge fan of complex story worlds, and perhaps Universal is setting up for a continuing story universe, especially given the way the film draws to a close. However, I found myself completely lacking any interest in the characters, merely because they are not the focus of the story. Snow White, whose main attributes are her innocence and purity (although, lip service is given to her “defiant spirit” in the beginning, is one note and boring, and apparently it is her beauty and goodness alone that inspire all these men to follow her. This leads to one of my main frustrations, because they movie seems very confused about what direction to take with her. She’s innocent and pure, but they also want to dress her in a suit of armor and have her fight in the final battle (and don’t get me started on how heavy that would actually be…especially for a girl who has supposedly been locked in a tower for 10 years). Ok...but pick one! Anyone who has seen or read anything good about female knights (Tamora Pierce's Tortall Universe features some great ones, as does Game of Thrones) knows how much work and effort goes into what is extremely physical, and what would have been considered an extremely unfeminine profession. It's okay if she can magically know how to fight and manage to hold herself upright under plate armor because hey, this means that reductive stereotyping in terms of personality is okay because look, she's been masculinized! See, she's holding a sword! And she's leading these people because...why again? Oh yes, because she's so pure and innocent! She likes wildlife! And she said the Our Father earlier (somewhat confusingly-so, we are in the real world?), so you know she's an angel! But I guess to appease any of those feminist people, she can fight too. See! She isn't only defined by innocence and purity! Except she is, and we are constantly reminded of it, which makes it harder and harder to take her seriously, as she is given virtually no motivation except for her goodness, and the vague mention of her as "the one". I guess she's kind of "plucky" as she has been called, but Stewart is called on to do so little except stand around with tears in her eyes, it's hard to get a sense of the character. Which brings me to the question of the romance. While I love making female characters strong and individualistic, I do admit to sometimes wanting the schloppy romance. This film steers pretty well clear of that, which has pros and cons I think (more later). The writer's start off by giving Stewart and Hemsworth a bit of sexual tension (and I mean, it’s not subtle or anything. He rips her skirt off for heaven’s sake), and completely abandon it once he finds out who she is (perhaps word of her innocence and purity had spread throughout the land? I don’t know). Heaven forbid she be tainted by a little actual sexuality. (Seriously, her first kiss has disastrous consequences). I do admire the aspect of her independence at the end of the film (you’ll see), but that was pretty much the only redeeming thing for her to me. The inconsistencies in her characterization show a lack of a true idea of who these characters are, which adds to a lack of feeling of any sense of connection between any of them. Am I supposed to care about her because she's the embodiment of all that is good? It might have helped if there was a little interaction between the adult Stewart and Theron's characters before the end of the film. I’m guessing there was a love triangle, but it was so poorly developed that I didn’t care at all about it. And the strongest relationship should have been between Snow White and Ravenna. Which brings me to Tangled. The best thing about Tangled was how it got so much right about mother daughter relationships. The original point of the evil stepmother was to allow children who felt angry or did not like aspects about their own mothers to safely displace these emotions onto another figure, who acted as the opposite of the figure of a caring, nurturing mother. (for a great discussion, see Maria Tatar’s The Hard Facts of the Grimms’ Fairy Tales). Bruno Bettelheim posited the theory that this allows for a splitting of the mother into a good (and absent) biological mother and an evil stepmother, preventing one from feeling guilty about being angry with one’s own mother. In Tangled, Mother Gothel has cared and nurtured for Rapunzel since she was a baby (does anyone else feel a little sympathy for the fact that she obviously was the one doing all the 3 a.m. feedings?), but in the true spirit of fairy tales, turns out to be an evil monster. I would have liked to see this kind of complexity from Snow White and the Huntsman, instead of a vilification from pretty much the beginning, with very little to humanize Ravenna. Even flashbacks to her past can’t make you empathize with her because she is such a monster.

Also, in brief, as alluded to before, are my issues with the romance of the story (there really almost isn't any). Yes, I like the fact that it stays away from many of the traditioanl pitfalls or teen movies here, but again, it can't decide what to be. Sure, they don't spend time building the romance...so why does Snow White still have to be kissed awake? And gosh darn it, if you try to set up a love triangle, I want there to be at least some heat between love interests. There isn’t any here, mostly because we don’t get many scenes with them actually interacting. I mean, the movie is named Snow White and the Huntsman. They should have more than, I don't know, 5 lines spoken to each other. There is so little dialogue between any of the lovers, that when Hemsworth has a monologue about Snow White, I am left completely unconvinced--not to mention the fact that she is unconscious at this time (SPOILER: except, interestingly, one of his lines is that she reminds him of his wife, who just died, so in this case, she is an interesting rebound case…another element that could have been brought up to complicate the characters, but wasn’t, and still, doesn't point to their connection, but to his and his dead wife's. Still, unconsciousness aside, I guess Snow heard it because of all the tears that leak out once she awakens by his smooch). END SPOILER. Several of the action scenes could have been cut in favor of more development between these characters—I’m thinking specifically of the fight with the troll, who is stopped in its tracks by staring deeply into Snow White’s eyes. Please. Why not cut this, which doesn’t advance the plot or the characterization (yes, I get it, she’s pure and innocent, and will save everyone) and in its place, add some actual human interaction. But I guess when your relationship is built on tears, gorgeous hair and beautiful biceps, who needs conversation? Side note: after seeing the wonderful sequence in Game of Thrones in “Blackwater”, and Tyrion Lannister’s rousing speech of “Those are brave men knocking at that gate. Let’s go kill them!”, Stewart’s overblown and preposterous rallying speech in this film rivaled Elizabeth Swan’s in POTC: At World’s End in terms of laughableness. I almost couldn’t keep a straight face. And when I say almost, I mean couldn’t. That’s right, I laughed. I do want to take a moment however, to mention the production design, which is gorgeous. The costumes are amazing, particularly Ravenna’s. There is wonderful imagery built around her and her connections to ravens (see, she’s named Ravenna, and she’s linked with ravens, which are a bird portending doom in many cultures. Get it? Get it?). The dreary and murky tone of the movie really works well, with brief splashes of color popping out. The CGI is wonderful in places, making textures interesting and creepy, particularly again in the palace of the queen (it is somewhat overdone and cheesy in the spiritualized “sanctuary” where the dwarfs take Snow White and the Huntsman. And I mean, Once Upon a Time cheesy. It doesn’t work here, while it does work in the tv show). However, the dark forest is pretty great, specifically when Snow White accidentally takes a trip on some hallucinogenic mushrooms, and images reminiscent of Disney’s 1937 Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. In addition, much of the action is pretty good. Snow White’s escape from the castle in particular is one of the only really well paced sequences in the film (due in large part, I’m sure, to the lack of gratuitous slow motion in this one section). One of the main characters is also an archer (which I am always a sucker for ever since the Legolas days), and the choreography is very nice in many of the hand to hand combat sequences. The metallic phantom warriors were also quite impressive, and executed well. All in all, not the re-imagining that I was hoping for. Instead of infusing creativity and vitality into an old story, and re-telling it to fit society’s hopes and fears today, we are left with a paltry eye candy piece that wants to be too many mediocre things instead of trying to be one, unified, stunning piece. It had potential, and if you can find a cheap screening, I would see it I guess. Try not to be too disappointed though. If you want a really solid movie version of Snow White (besides Disney's that is), try the 1997 film "Snow White: A Tale of Terror", with Sigourney Weaver, which features far more humanizing characterizations and relationships. Also interestingly for those of you who might like this, (I'm looking at the somewhat more feminist among you), Snow White is not awakened with True Love's first kiss, but by her love interest (well some things don't change), shaking her violently until the piece of apple lodged in her throat gets coughed up. He's shouting "Breathe" at her all the while, and it's quite entertaining. Here's a trailer for it, and I definitely recommend this one. My rating: C+

Into the Abyss

I have been so busy during the Master's program at USC that I hardly find time to write on this blog anymore except about films that really move me in some way. Perhaps it is a sign of how good Werner Herzog's new documentary "Into the Abyss" is that I am inspired to post a review even though I have not done so in so long. But the feeling I left with after this film is one that I would like others to experience, so I am encouraging you to go and see it.

To say it is a film about the death penalty is, I think, to miss some of the point of the film. It is about so much more. It is about an inmate on death row, and the circumstances surrounding how he got there--a senseless crime, families affected, the general nature of the death penalty in the state of Texas. However, one of the things I admire so much about this film is Herzog's respect for his subjects within the film, and the lack of pontification the film shows. Herzog does have a point of view, and in the style that is uniquely his, it comes across strongly through the film. So many documentarians seem to hide behind "facts", or let the facts tell the story because they think it will make their film less biased, or more interesting or something. However, anyone who thinks that any film can be made without a point of view is simply wrong. There is no way to divorce film maker from film entirely, and trying to remove yourself as a documentarian to prove the validity of the film only seems to me to make it weaker a lot of the time. Herzog does not give easy answers to the questions he poses. The perpetrator on death row is obviously guilty. However, Herzog refuses cheap tricks of vilification. We do not need emphasis on their villainy to feel for the victims' families, or understand the senseless nature of the heinous crime. However, the refusal to see the perpetrators as other than human adds layers of meaning, depth and truth to the film. One of the wonderful things about "Into the Abyss" is Herzog's presence within the film. Not quite a narrator, he still gives us a center from which to view what he is showing us, and shows the care that he has for filmmaking and the interest he has in this subject.

In what for me was a very great treat, Herzog was present to answer questions after the screening of the film at USC, and one of the points that came up was the revelation of truth vs. the spewing of facts. Because facts are not truth--I suppose in cases they can help lead you to it. However, truth is deeper, less tangible and more engrossing than mere facts. It is here that the power of Herzog's latest documentary lies. He does not seek facts, but truth--raw, emotional reality beyond questions of blame and guilt, beyond the espousal of political ideologies or the support of issues. "Into the Abyss" feels balanced in this sense, and does not feel that it must beat its audience over the head with its message. It (and Herzog) trusts the audience to bring themselves to the film, and draw what they will from it. While this is not to say that Herzog does not have an agenda with this film, for the point of view he takes comes across through his construction of the film, I think the respect Herzog shows with his subjects he extends to his audience. If they are coming to see the film, he respects them (and his own film-making) enough to let the story unfold visually, and cinematically without the need to beat an ideological standpoint into the ground.

This is not to say that that type of film-making does not have its place as well--however I find the story of "Into the Abyss" far more compelling and truthful than these films. The film is raw and real, and seeks out truth instead of seeking blame or guilt. The authorial presence lends a humanism to the film, and even in surprising moments a touch of the humor that Herzog often infuses into his films. I went into the movie expecting it to be depressing--how could a movie about the death penalty not be? While the movie is desperately sad, and deals with many of the worst events imaginable, Herzog deals with the subject so skillfully that I did not leave the theater feeling the impossible weight of the world bearing down on me as I have from documentaries about much less serious topics. Herzog weaves in small stories of hope, stories of heroism, and stories of love that are beautiful to behold. See especially, the story of a young man in a bar fight, stabbed with a long screwdriver, who didn't pick up a knife tossed at him to retaliate because he wanted to be able to go home and see his children that night. Look at the man who worked strapping down inmates to receive lethal injections, and after 125 could not justify a belief that anyone should be able to take a life any longer. And in the end, it seems to me that while the story is about death, it is also about life, and the importance of life. And this is what is inspiring about it even in its darkest, most abysmal moments.

Fish in the Toilet of Love

Look out for spoilers! (Also, title is nothing but a reference to the brilliant British show Coupling, however I think it is apt for this post).

Well, after seeing Jane Eyre, spring break turned into a Fassbender fest for me, and I watched everything I could get my hands on with him in it that I hadn’t already seen. While watched last year’s Fish Tank, I was struck by its similarities to 2009’s An Education. Similarities abound--disaffected youth, instability of a family unit, affair with an older, married man. It was quite surprising how similar they are in ways. However, Fish Tank is a far superior film, and far less pretentious about being so.


Carey Mulligan was called the next Audrey Hepburn by someone after her role in An Education, and she is quite stunning in the movie. The film is well written, well acted and keeps you involved. It takes place in 1960s England, and takes great care to let you know how cool it is (she likes French New Wave cinema, and all the ‘cool’ trappings that go with that supposedly ‘anti-bourgeois’ art crowd. However, of course, An Education itself is not concerned with questions of class or race at all. Some mention of financial hardship is present (oh dear, how shall we ever afford Oxford?), however the characters lead a comfortable lives. Peter Sarsgaard is wealthier than her family, but the differences are not that pronounced, except that he can afford to take her on a trip to Paris. At the end, I couldn’t help rolling my eyes a bit as the main character says how she looks like everyone at Oxford, yet is so different on the inside. Okay, I get it, she was affected by this older man she slept with and her youthful dreams of a perfect marriage were forever shattered. However, she was able to pick herself up by her shoelaces and get back her scholarship to freaking Oxford. Boo hoo.


Fish Tank tells the story of Mia, a 15 year old girl who lives with her incredibly young mother and little sister--all of whom appear to hate each other, and are constantly yelling and cussing each other out. They are incredibly poor (“those track suits cost 20 quid”), and Mia is about to get sent to a referral school because her behavior is so out of control. Mia’s mother brings home a new boyfriend, Connor (Fassbender!), and from the start, a great amount of sexual tension dances between them. The film is wonderfully shot and has an incredible soundtrack that amps this all up, until the inevitable happens. The difference, and more believable/miserable reality of this film is that Mia has nowhere to go; it exposes the fallacy of class mobility (sure, it happens once in a blue moon I suppose, but not nearly so much as we would like to think). She tries to get ahead through the one thing she loves, dancing, however her opportunity here too turns out to be a cruel joke by the universe. Similarly, the class struggle of the film is heightened by the fact that Connor(spoiler) really belongs to the middle class, even though you don’t know this for most of the film and read him as part of the working class, like them. There are uncomfortable connotations of his “slumming” with Mia’s family, and her reactions to this knowledge are uncontrollable and frightening. While not a film about race and class, the racial aspect of class is not ignored such as it kind of is in An Education, and presents itself through Mia’s choice of music and dance styles, which have linked black and working class populations in Britain for decades (see Dick Hebdige’s work on subcultures for greater analysis of this). While the end of the film does resolve her struggles with her mother and sister, and she escapes the building she’s in, she doesn’t get to escape to one of the world’s finest educational institutions, but to Wales. Her’s isn’t a vertical track, it’s horizontal. You can’t help getting the feeling too, that her sister will end up trapped just like she is in the end.


Katie Jarvis is absolutely wonderful as the prickly, aggressive and defensive Mia, who is angry at the world that ignores and doesn’t care about her. Michael Fassbender is wonderful as Connor, who doesn’t seem so bad, is wildly charismatic, but turns out to be scum. While I enjoyed An Education, Fish Tank is unquestionably the better and more meaningful film, that feels like it’s about actual people, vs. that film that you know you’re supposed to like, but it can’t quite escape the feeling of staged-ness, or the feeling that it really should be a book (which it is).

My favorite movie for the Oscars!

Any movie that uses Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 in A major automatically goes into my category of excellent films. I thought that I would take a moment to discuss a movie that I just saw, and is likely to be up for best picture at the Oscars. It has already been nominated for a Golden Globe, and I must say, it is one of my favorites of the year as well.

"The King's Speech" stars Colin Firth as King George VI and Geoffrey Rush as his elocution and speech 'teacher' Lionel Logue. Like all movies I end up loving, it took some forcing myself to go see it. I was much more excited about the tense, anxiety inducing thriller "Black Swan"...which I also loved. However, Colin Firth in particular (but also Geoffrey Rush, who I don't think has ever given a bad performance) is so incredible, I found myself mesmerized by a person I have never had any interest in whatsoever. In the film (and perhaps in real life? I confess to not being familiar with much about this era of British history), King George ("Bertie") talks funny--and I don't mean the stammer (perhaps some of you are familiar with the distinct manners of elocution around that time...several Hollywood personalities talked in a similar manner). He has a temper, cowers at times in the face of his brother and father, and is like much royalty, reticent about his emotions, past, and much about himself.

It is a testament to Colin Firth's extraordinary performance then, as well as the direction of Tom Hooper and screenplay by David Seidler, that these elements do not come across to make us dislike the character. We are rather more endeared to him because of these traits, and the film manages to build Firth's and Rush's, characters with very little exposition (always the mark of a fine film). If anyone has ever had to speak in public, it is quite a nerve-wracking experience. For a person with a speech impediment, it must be ten times worse. The film brings this anxiety out-not with pity or derision, but simply as a hurdle this man must face to perform his job (being king...). Still, at the climactic moment (cue Beethoven!), the gravity of the situation and the importance of the struggles of the king are executed beautifully as he makes a solemn speech to his subjects on the entrance of England into WWII, linking his personal story with the overarching history to which royalty especially is invariably intertwined.

It is a movie that deals wonderfully with the subject of royalty as well, and the manner that Albert and Elizabeth (Helena Bonham-Carter) fulfill their duties while others are not perhaps up to the challenge. Also, the manner in which commoners interact and do(not) necessarily comprehend what it still means to be the king (or queen...). "Black Swan" was wonderful for its excess, the story (even though it's not the most original idea...), and of course, Natalie Portman was wonderful. And I'm a sucker for a movie about dancing. However, "The King's Speech, with its understatement, and masterful performances, is exquisite. It deserves to win, and while it may lose out to the larger box office of films such as "Black Swan" or "Social Network", "The King's Speech" is my personal pick. At least, for now.

Master of Suspense

Well, I'm finally settled here in Los Angeles, working on my Master's Degree! I realize that the consistency of my posts is shaky at best, but I thought I would just keep plugging away, and try to keep up. At least you know that the movies that I do talk about are the ones that truly inspire me to write about them. That being said, let's get down to it!

I am working for the University of Southern California at the moment, in the capacity of a 'reader' for a class taught by Dr. Drew Casper on the subject of Alfred Hitchcock. Basically, I sit in on the class, do the readings, and then I grade the papers of the undergraduates assigned to me. The class has met 3 times now, I believe. We have worked our way through Hitchcock's silet films and British sound films, and next week, we'll move on to his Hollywood career.

I wanted to take a moment though, and recognize two films that I was particularly impressed with, seeing that not many people give as much thought to his British films as his Hollywood ones. While his Hollywood classics such as Vertigo, Spellbound, The Birds, and of course Psycho remain his most popular and widely viewed work, it is the films that he made during his time in Britain that helped raise him to the level of master.

In particular, the two films that speak to me are "The 39 Steps"(1935) and "The Lady Vanishes" (1938). Hitchcock has darker films, and films that mix light and dark, and the element of slapstick that goes into these two films is perhaps what draws me, personally, to them more than his other films (which have, arguably, greater technical merit). Hitchcock was a master at blending genres, and these two films, while very different, are similar in that they are a combination of suspense, action, adventure, mystery, thriller, and romantic comedy.

We'll start chronologically, with "The 39 Steps". Starring Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll, this film centers around a man who gets dragged into a game of espionage and intrigue involving national secrets that are about to be smuggled out of the country. After assisting an agent, who then gets murdered in his apartment, he is on the flee from the bad guys, the government-everyone basically, until he can clear his name. One of the points that is continually brought up in class is how Hitchcock's stories rely on character-it is how he successfully builds suspense, and why his stories are so gripping. He often takes flat, morally ambiguous characters at the beginning and takes them on a journey towards greater humanism and personality. This film is no different, which the character of Richard Hannay (Donat) taking on multiple character roles as masks as he makes his journey through the film. Madeleine Carroll takes the role of the 'cool blond', who starts out hindering Hannay as much as the rest, but also goes through a transformation of character and greater depth as the film goes on. The best scene, in my opinion, occurs after these two have been handcuffed together, and find themselves looking for a way out of their predicament while trapped in an inn in the Highlands of Scotland. This scene is also quite risque, and extraordinary for its blatant sexuality that was quite uncommon at that time (they even appear in a bed together!).


This film is particularly remarkable in my opinion because the acting is spot on. The secondary characters are particularly well rounded and interesting, despite having very little time on screen. Donat himself is probably one of the mroe charismatic British actors of that time period. Hitchcock perhaps would disagree with the importance placed on the actors, and perhaps it is just their ability to effortlessly carry off his (and screenwriter Charles Bennett's) masterpiece. The pacing of the story carries the audience along so quickly, you barely have time to catch your breath before the next sequence occurs. I would give this movie 5 stars, and heartily recommend it, especially if you are not familiar with Hitchcock's British, or black and white work.

The next film I want to overview is "The Lady Vanishes", which actually reminded me a lot of Agatha Christie's 'Murder on the Orient Express' when I first heard about it (even though they have very little to do with one another, except for taking place on a train). This film centers on a young woman who befriends an elderly woman aboard a train while she is heading back home to be married (for $!). When the lady vanishes suddenly, everyone else on the train claims not to have seen her, even though the protagonist swears she was there. Helped by a slightly roguish man (who records folk songs to write about), she searches the train and tries to unearth the conspiracy surrounding the old lady. My personal favorite scene is a rather farcical fight in the baggage compartment.

Once again, this film is chock full of wonderful secondary characters, most interesting among them is a homosexual couple whose only interest throughout the film is cricket, and getting back to England in time for a penultimate match. Claustrophobic (the whole set was something like 70 feet), this film defines how to tell a story in an extremely limited space-indeed, one of the main pleasures of the film is where the devil could they be hiding a little old lady on this train? Once again, the characters begin as morally ambiguous, but slowly grow in our estimation through their actions and worries. It is his first politically allegorical film (taking issues with Britain's lack of a stance against an increasingly fascist rising power in Europe at the time). Also chock full of engaging and charismatic performances by Margaret Lockwood and Michael Redgrave, this has perhaps bumped out The Birds as my favorite Hitchcock. (Also, the first of Hitchcock;s films with a recapitulation scene) Obviously, this film also gets 5 stars.



So, if you are looking for a more light-hearted side to Hitchcock, these two films are both wonderful. Perhaps they lack some of the mastery of later classics (Notorious just popped into my head...that's a wonderful movie). But these movies are full of incredible characters, amazing writing, and wonderfully paces plots with the right amount of suspense, humor and adventure mixed in to make one heck of a good time.

(At this moment, they are both available on at IMDB.com, as well as Netflix Instant Play).

Catching Up

There is a saying that classics are what everyone wants to have read, but no one actually wants to read. I feel like sometimes I get that way with films also. If I know that I should see a movie because it is a classic, but perhaps I am not feeling particularly interested at the time, or there is some commercial blockbuster coming out I'm looking forward to, I will put off the classic film for as long as possible. Until somehow I am forced to see it, I push it to the bottom of my Netflix account, or check it out and return it without watching it.

Such was the case with Ingmar Bergman's classic film "The Seventh Seal". It was briefly discussed in my film history class, and I decided that I had to see it. Two years later, I still hadn't gotten around to it. Finally, last November I couldn't put it off anymore, and I moved it to the front of my list. It is the first Bergman film that I have seen, but will not be the last. IMDB's summary: "A man seeks answers about life, death, and the existence of God as he plays chess against the Grim Reaper during the Black Plague". A pretty accurate description, however it cannot capture the nature of the film, and the reason that it should be required viewing for anyone who calls themselves a fan of film.

I have never seen a film that captures more of the dismay and hopelessness of the outbreak of the black plague. Recent films try to shock audiences with scenes of violent illnesses, or grotesque, wasting diseases. Fair enough, I'm sure they're not inaccurate. However, the Seventh Seal captures a sense of abandonment and foreboding despair that feels so real that it is easier to understand the horror of this particular event in history than some vague historical description of it. Characters in the film turn to religion (often times, disturbingly, to methods such as self-flagellation), turn away from religion, and try to cope with life and death in various ways. There are characters for different sets of belief, making the Seventh Seal a sort of allegorical film. Of course, this also appears through one of the more interesting characters of the film, Death. He and the knight, Antonius Block, play a game of chess in which the outcome is life and death. Death is also in my opinion, morbidly comical at points of the film, as he suddenly appears behind a man hiding in a tree trying to escape him and produces a large saw to cut the tree down.

Even in the darkness of the film however, there is a young family, Jof(Joseph), Mia (Mary) and their young son. As a representation of the holy family, the make it through the turbulent and dangerous times and provide hope in the midst of all the darkness and death surrounding them.

Anyway, trying to keep this post a bit shorter, I highly recommend this film. It is the most interesting rumination on death and the "mortal coil" that all humans face. A masterpiece of film, excellent cinematography and superb acting. It is the only film I have ever seen where I immediately wanted to watch it again with the commentary track on. If you want to see a film that will actually make you think, and you can tell a lot of though went into, this is the one for you.