We Want To Be Entertained

broderic on July 12, 2012

CMP 403
Oct. 4, 1992

While watching an Arnold Swarzeneggar movie at the theater, does the phrase “that’s art” come to your mind? For an Arnold film, it usually doesn’t, but for other films such a Bergman, Hitchcock or Allen, it’s questionable. Whenever some personal creation is viewed in public, be it painting, sculpture, writing, and even movies, the eternal question of what is art always arises. That is the dichotomy of movies and film; should it be considered as art or as entertainment?

Movies are easy to imagine as being art, but that does not mean they are. They are more easily viewed as entertainment, because so many people enjoy them so often. Art is not enjoyed by many people. Can you consider an Arnold film such as Terminator 2 as art? It grossed an ridiculously large amount of money at the box-office and was seen by many, but does it have art’s social value? How about an action-adventure movie such as a Van Damme picture, Cyborg? Obviously, they couldn’t be art. With an exception such as Citizen Kane, movies can be taken as art. When compared to other art forms, movies are above all entertainment. A Citizen Kane towers above a Cyborg in artistic value, because of its beauty. In entertainment value though, both provide pleasure to its viewer each in its own way. Citizen Kane is a classic example of good storytelling, and Cyborg is just an amusing film.

People think art is for the highbrow crowd. It is for the intellectual and not for the average person to understand. Art is out of touch with the common person’s feelings. Comprehension comes before appreciation. When you watch an average movie, it moves you, because it’s easy to understand. It is staightforward a simple story, and there is nothing misleading about stories. Art, on the other hand, is an abstraction of ideas. Its concepts are beyond some people’s capacity to comprehend. Movies appeal to all ages; everyone from children to adults can like a movie. Young people can not appreciate art that much, because the meaning behind art is elusive and too complex for inexperienced minds. Art’s appeal is limited. If that is true, then movies which appeal to a broad spectrum of people are different than art.

From very early in film history, movies were a form of entertainment. The silent pictures of Lumiere and Melies were above all an amusing event. At first, films were a novelty, but they quickly became a form of diversion. To go to the a movie theater in the Forties and Fifties was like a night on the town. It provided people with a chance to leave the seclusion of their homes to socialize with others. The most common thing said about movies was that they were an escape from reality. As for art forms such as painting and sculpture, they were not as accessible to the masses. They were even harder to comprehend much less enjoy. Movies though were thoroughly enjoyable. You did not need to be an intellectual to know what amused you. Movies were, and still are, for pleasure for the audience.

A filmmaker would like to consider his or her creation a work of art, but the audience, as well as the producers, consider the film as entertainment. People spend a lot of money to be entertained. What they are not particularly looking for in their entertainment is some form of social value in it. The dollar plays an important role in movie making. Someone pays for movies: to make them and to see them. Films are big business and the bottom line in business is money. True artists work for their self satisfaction. At every moment, they strive for the sake of art and never sacrifice their integrity for money. Moviemakers balance the art and entertainment aspect of their work, but usually business wins over the artistic vision. Filmmakers are paid to make movies which shapes their decisions.

Wherever money is at stake, personal visions are put on hold. This adage is true especially with movies. Take for example Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. Originally budgeted at $26 million dollars– plenty of money in its days, it ran over budget. When shown to preview audiences, the reaction was unfavorable. Ridley Scott wanted to make the film in his vision. He took the media of film to new heights especially in the art direction and production. Yet, the audience found the movie too confusing; it left them cold. The distributor realized that it would loose money on an unentertaining film, and they wanted a better, revised version. Ridley Scott did not want to compromise his film, but it wasn’t in his hands any more. It fell to the people with the money, and true art is not influenced by money only by artistic vision.

Movies are first and foremost entertainment. The plot takes precedence over the moving pictures. No matter how beautiful a film is photographed or staged, it’s considered a success when it charms its audience. Above all, the goal of moviemakers is to tell a story, and they succeed when the story comes through in an enjoyable manner. In essence, movies are modern day versions of oral tales, and the moviemaker is the modern storyteller. In the past, tales were told to amuse the listener.

Movies continue that tradition except instead of words they use pictures.

Midnight Cowboy

broderic on May 23, 2012

Nov. 5, 1991

In 113 minutes, director John Schlesinger can make you feel uncomfortable. His film, Midnight Cowboy is a tale of attempted sexual exploits of a young Texan stud. It contains themes that are less risqué today than when the picture was released in 1969. Homosexuality, prostitution, gang rape, and sordid sex abound and last throughout the film. Back in 1969, these topics were not as openly discussed, or shown, as they are today, and the film seems less likely to cause a stir now than during its first release. But the reason you’ll feel uncomfortable is that this film breaks down in the telling. The plot is simple, but Schlesinger’s direction is unclear; it makes hardly any sense when seeing it for the first time. Schlesinger takes liberties with the film medium. Certain filmic aspects which he uses confuse an otherwise simple story. Flashbacks occur so often that they’ll leave you wondering about what you are seeing. Odd angles and shots make the film seem twice as strange. You don’t understand what you’re seeing. You don’t know what the point is being made by the director . You won’t care about what you’re watching. It’s too bad, because Midnight Cowboy makes a good point about friendships.

At the heart of the film is the character of Joe Buck who is played brilliantly by Jon Voight. He is a swaggering cowboy who believes that he’ll make lots of money in New York City sexually satisfying rich, middle-aged women by prostituting himself. Needless to say, he doesn’t make it big as a male prostitute. In fact, his first trick not only ends up not paying but also swindles Joe Buck into loaning her money for cab fare. Joe Buck is completely out of place in the big city which leaves him at a disadvantage. He is a man innocent of the ways of hustling, and cannot hustle a trick without a the help of someone with some street knowledge. He eventually meets a crippled small time hood, Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), who thinks of using Joe as his meal ticket in exchange for help. Ratso wants to be his pimp, but their relationship starts off ugly as Ratso cons Joe Buck out of twenty dollars. Later, they become the best of friends, and it’s Joe Buck who supports them and cares for the sick Ratso.

Now that doesn’t sound too confusing, right? Wrong. The characters are more complicated than that. Schlesinger, in his attempt to show the underside of life in the big city, peoples the film with indecent characters. They run the gamut from a two bit, hustling thief, Ratso, to Warhol-like, drugged out artists. Not one of the characters are likable. Even Joe Buck, who at the end seems to be a decent person, leads the life of a male prostitute. This is not a job for such an ambitious person. Yet, his complex character is interesting for the fact that his life has been dominated by prostitution. Schlesinger points out through flashbacks that Joe Buck had a rotten childhood. His grandmother had plenty of male friends who had visited her plenty of times; she seemed to be a prostitute. He was also victimized at his peak sexual age by a gang. What little attention he got from his grandmother hinted toward sexual advances; he could’ve been molested as a child. Who knows, because the flashbacks to his childhood are indecipherable.

The most dizzying scene of the film is the party scene. It is of a Warhol-like gathering. Artists, stoners, and groupies gather in a loft to smoke dope and watch pretty, dancing lights. Joe Buck and Ratso go the party in order to get food and maybe make some money by picking up women. In this scene, Schlesinger reaches the epitome of distraction with plenty of flashy tricks. More flashbacks into Joe Buck’s past occur which are just as confusing. During the party scene, Schlesinger continues to make the plot confusing by his untimely switch into a psychedelic state. He has groovy music play as Joe Buck takes his first hit of a marijuana cigarette. Grotesque images flash on screen to highlight the weird atmosphere of the party. Strange camera angles and rough editing also impart a disorienting feel to the party. If you had hardly followed the film up until this scene, when you get to this point, you’ll probably furrow your brow and ponder what is it that Schlesinger wants to say.

Midnight Cowboy is obsessed with sex. Joe Buck thinks to make money from being a gigolo, but the cowboy routine suggests homosexuality. Throughout the movie, Joe Buck isn’t the only male prostitute prowling the streets in western garb; there are plenty of others who have the fringed shirt and cowboy hat. They all are gays, and in fact, Joe Buck has a few homosexual encounters to help pay the bills. In its time, the openly expressed homosexuality would have been considered very risqué for a major motion picture, but now in this politically correct world, men loving men is almost casual to hear about and see. The film doesn’t exploit gay love, but makes more of a statement on the relationship of two men, namely Joe Buck and Ratso. They don’t have homosexual tendencies, but what they do have is friendship. Their relationship is like the one between Lenny and George in Of Mice and Men. One is the brains; the other is the muscles. They have dreams of going to Florida and basking in the sun. They rely on each other to the point that if one falls so does the other.

Midnight Cowboy tries hard to establish itself as an important film. In some ways it does, and in others it falls short. The general story without the confusing details is a tragic tale of man’s search for an end to his loneliness. It’s a simple story that is similar to a great classic of literature, Of Mice and Men. It is a moving film, but John Schlesinger’s direction hinders the film from achieving its goal. Schlesinger mistakenly adds unnecessary elements to the film. He imposes his authority onto the story and creates confusion. Schlesinger cannot tell the story straight, but has to embellish it with a confusing style which ultimately leaves you puzzled. In Midnight Cowboy, the telling overshadows the tale.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula

broderic on May 2, 2008

Nov. 19, 1992

Director Francis Ford Coppola gives a refreshing and interesting interpretation of the legend of Dracula. He does not offer the overdone Hollywood view of the Prince of Darkness as a bloodsucker, but instead, he chooses to remain faithful to Bram StokerÕs novel and to elevate the Victorian romance to the forefront. CoppalaÕs Dracula does not say, ÒI vant to suck your blood,Ó in a cheesy Rumanian accent nor does he have the hypnotic stare as popularized in many of the vampire films including the 1931 classic starring Bela Legosi. In fact, CoppolaÕs Dracula has an entirely different theme from its predecessors. It does not fall under the genre of horror film, but it encapsulates a variety of styles from horror to romance to even action-adventure. Coppola turns the Dracula legend upside-down, and redeems himself as one of AmericaÕs premiere directors.

Dracula is not like any vampire film that you have seen. Working from a script by James Hart, Coppola from the beginning wants you to feel the passion behind the motives of the man who was called Count Dracula. In the first scene which takes place a few hundred years before the Victorian age in London, the theme of undying love is established. Dracula is a man with a history behind his blood lust; he wants to become undead (never dying) in order to find his lost love, Elisabeta. Dracula having reason to his pursuit of blood is not what you would expect from a telling of the Dracula legend. If you enter thinking that you are going to see a lot of neck biting and other contrived devices of previous vampire films, then you are in for a surprise. Coppola wants to remain true to Bram StokerÕs novel and change the way audiences perceive the Dracula tale. He still shows a lot of blood, but focuses more on the attraction between Mina Murray (Winona Ryder) and Dracula (Gary Oldman).

Coppola returns to the screen in a highly stylized way. He starts out to take a look at passion and obsession and achieves that goal in his direction of the film. He takes you for a ride which does not slow down until the ending. Dracula constantly moves at an exciting pace; it never slows down. Even when there is not much action on screen, Coppola enlivens the film with dazzling cinematic techniques. From the opening moments of Count DraculaÕs battle against the Turks to the chase at the end, Coppola maintains a visual assault on your eyes with techniques that are flashy and uncustomarily unlike the director. The technique he uses in showing the countÕs point of view while stalking his prey is exhilarating. All this flashy camera work and special effects may sometimes get in the way of the story, but they are meant to highlight certain themes being played out. Also, his transitions between scenes are solid, even if at times they are confusing. But what makes his direction of the film stand out is the faith he had in the relatively young cast.

In the title role of Dracula, Gary Oldman does a convincing job. His Dracula is something other than a bloodsucking, undead creature of the night. Rather, he is charming and dramatic and able to exist beneath the midday sun, although his shadow has a life of its own. Oldman follows CoppolaÕs lead in changing Dracula from a man of evil nature to a man compelled by love. Bela Legosi would have a hard time recognizing the character he so much had created. Where LegosiÕs Dracula would have been more formal and staid, OldmanÕs rendition is irreverent to the notion that a vampires life is just lying around waiting for the sun to go down. Oldman shows the twisted side of lost mortality in Dracula. When Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) cuts himself shaving, its amusing to see Dracula lick the razor clean; he needs the blood of a vibrant young person to maintain the illusion of living. Oldman makes Dracula seem more human which makes Dracula all the more creepy and spooky . Dracula doesnÕt do much to scare you but does enough to send shivers up your spine.

Other members of the young cast have impressive performances. They easily overcome the difficulties with an English accent. Winona Ryder turns in a remarkable performance as Mina Murray, DraculaÕs replacement for Elisabeta and HarkerÕs fiancŽe. Her fragile look fits that of a coy young, Victorian lady. At times, she is devoted to Harker, but when Dracula steps into her life she quickly falls for him. The sudden shift of her affection seems unbelievable at first, but it is within her character to give her undying devotion to someone. And it so happens that she fears Jonathan is dead. Keanu Reeves, as Jonathan Harker, overcomes his image of a burnt out surfer dude to give a spotty performance. When Harker is first introduced, Reeves seems to be unsuited for the role. His English accent sounds terrible, but by the close of the film, ReevesÕ performance increases in strength. Newcomer, Sadie Frost , does an amazing job with Lucy. As her name suggests, Lucy is a up front about her sexuality which is a contrast to RyderÕs upright Mina. She exemplifies the erotic nature to a vampireÕs blood lust.

The biggest surprise performance comes from Anthony Hopkins who plays DraculaÕs nemesis, Van Helsing. As with OldmanÕs portrayal of Dracula, Hopkins gives a refreshingly new interpretation to the Van Helsing role. In this film, Van Helsing is no longer a serious vampire slayer, but a swaggering old man who finds fun in hunting Dracula. It Ôs not just a job but an adventure. The two most serious characters, Dracula and Van Helsing, are played with a lighthearted feel. In fact, Hopkins illicits many of the laughs in the movie. He is just as comfortable at commenting on the action with witty one-liners as he is in driving a stake through a vampireÕs heart.

The opening of Dracula is surrounded by much hype. It is an eagerly awaited film. Lines are long to get into the theater, but you will get your moneyÕs worth in the first few minutes of an exhilarating film. Coppola changes the Dracula myth which will be a surprise to you. He renews the life of vampire films, and takes the genre to another level. Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins give the Van Helsing-Dracula rivalry a different perspective; they make it an age old rivalry for a manÕs humanity as well as entertaining to watch. With performances that are stellar and a visual style that is breathtaking, Dracula goes directly for the jugular and scores a hit.

Annie Hall

broderic on January 13, 2008

Oct. 12, 1992

At the start of Annie Hall, the comedian, Alvy Singer directly addresses the audience in a short but witty monologue. In this monologue, he delivers two jokes which, although they are clichés, are underlying themes to Alvy’s personality and his inability to commit to relationships. His monologue seems to apply only to himself, but in a deeper fashion it could apply to all people’s relationships. Woody Allen, the director, starts a simple character study of an unsteady relationship between two average individuals and turns it into a fascinating insight into human behavior.

The main focus of the film is Alvy Singer’s (Woody Allen’s) relationship with a struggling singer, Annie Hall, played by Diane Keaton. Usually, their relationship consists of talking with each other. They talk about their careers, their therapy, and their almost non-existent sex life, but hardly about each one’s feelings towards the other. The only action that takes place is limited to Alvy’s flight to California to bring back Annie to New York. Towards the end he sees within himself a struggle to make a commitment to Annie.

Throughout the film, they go from being a couple to being disillusioned lovers to simply being two people living in the same big city. Their up and down relationship culminates in a somber ending when they walk away from each other.

Allen, as director and co-writer of Annie Hall, revitalizes the often done tale of the love lives of men and women with new power and vigor. With the introduction of original and very quirky characters, Allen jazzes up a rather mundane subject. The characters change the film’s focus from a love story to an individual’s relationship that makes the film thoroughly enjoyable. Alvy Singer isn’t just the main character looking for a relationship, but is also a neurotic comedian with a false sense that everyone is anti-Semitic. In a very hilarious scene, Alvy tells his friend Rob (Tony Roberts) about mistakenly overhearing someone say “did Jew” not “did you.” His paranoid fears come to the fore when he has to meet Annie’s family. When Annie tells Alvy that her Grammy Hall is suspicious of Jewish people,

Alvy immediately becomes self-conscious and dreads meeting her. And when they do meet at her parent’s house, he literally sees himself turn into an orthodox Jew under Grammy’s stare.

Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) is the ultimate quirky individual who adds much to the comedy in the film. Her mannerisms are unique to her. She drives her car at breakneck speeds through crowded city streets that frightens Alvy whenever he’s in the car. She uses childish language to sum up her feelings at the time, which amazes Alvy that a grown woman would use such language. In the scene of their first meeting, she comes across as a bubbly woman eager to spend some time with him. She makes her plans incredibly flexible that Alvy can only accept her offer of a ride home, even though she has said that she was going the opposite way. It is her charm that makes Alvy fall in love with her.

Other interesting minor characters add life to the story making it more fun and amusing. They are not just additions to the story, but they also contribute much to the comedic nature of the film. The use of the other characters as a sound board for jokes spices up the film. Rob, Alvie’s best friend, is an actor and a womanizer. Alvy turns to him for advice, but besides the fact he points out that Alvy needs to get laid, Rob offers no solid guidance for Alvy’s love life. Duane Hall (Christopher Walken) has one line in the film about how he wants to crash his car whenever he drives which ends up being entertaining in the scene when he drives Alvy and Annie to the airport. Alvy sits with a nervous face, while Annie and Duane act as if he never contemplated crashing the car. The humor in this scene is subtle, but it is also very amusing.

The casting of Shelley Duvall in the role of Pam is a good choice. The physical characteristics of Duvall make her fit perfectly into Pam’s role as a terrible one-night stand for Alvy to have to get over his breakup with Annie. Pam is an awkward and somewhat unattractive person, and Alvy hardly gets along with her. On their first, and only date, Alvy acts uncomfortable with her. They hardly engage in conversation, and when they finally end up in bed, the look on Alvy’s face as he listens to her talk is a mixture of regret and of boredom that is truly hilarious in the context that they just finished doing it.

The essence of Annie Hall is human relationships, and Woody Allen directs the cast to an almost perfect performance that the story of two individual’s relationship stands as being universal. You can almost sympathize with the characters, because they could be you. There are hardly any flaws in Allen’s direction. What little action enhances the story, and everyone says what you would expect them to say in context with their character. The characters and what they say elevate the film to its funniest moments. It’s what these strange individuals say that make the film hilarious. The dialogue is comical as it is flawless. The people in Annie Hall turn the most basic human problems into a pleasant experience to watch someone go through.

“Down here you’re on your own.”

broderic on January 11, 2008

December 20,1992

Even in the wide open plains of Texas, film noire can still exist. The filmmaking team of the brothers Joel and Ethan Coen postulate the notion that Texas can be the perfect setting for film noire. In Blood Simple, there is no need for the claustrophobic feel of a big city to enhance the bleak aspect towards life in film noire; it can easily be done in the great vastness of the plains of Texas. The Coen brothers are able to serve up a unique thriller with offbeat humor and still stay true to some aspects of film noire. They don’t just follow the genre’s conventions, but direct the film in a style all their own that they elevate film noire to an exciting level. In every way imaginable Blood Simple is typical of a film in the genre, but there are times in the film in which the Coen brothers break the mode of film noire which makes for a very original film. Their debut in Blood Simple will lead the Coen brothers to be a strong creative force in cinema.

Blood Simple opens, as most film noire movies do, with a character doing a voice over narration. Later, you’ll recognize the voice as being that of the private detective, Visser (M. Emmet Walsh). With the Texan drawl and a heaping dose of sarcasm in his voice, the brooding, pessimistic attitude of film noire comes through within the first few minutes of the film. Visser’s narration consists of one idea: nothing is fair in the world, especially in Texas. In fact one of Visser’s lines is, “One thing I know about is Texas, and down here you’re on your own.” The narration has a very pessimistic outlook and sets the tone for the rest of the film. Texas too can have the brooding, dark atmosphere that is the trademark feel of the big city in film noire. Even though the narration does not continue past its first use, the pessimistic attitude, which the narration was filled with, remains the major theme for the rest of the film. Incidentally, to show how deeply dark this film is, the character doing the narration will be dead by the end of the film.

Another film noire convention that the film utilizes is the character of the leading female role as being that of a “black widow.” They are femme fatales that cause the downfall of the men in the film. Abbey (Frances McDormand) destroys all the male characters who come to know her. First, it’s her husband, Marty (Dan Hedaya), who suffers. Marty must put up with the ungrateful wife that Abbey is. He also has to put up with her many extra-marital affairs. In defense of her though, Marty is not a loving husband; he drove her out of the marriage. The second man to fall because of Abbey is Ray (John Getz). Their affair together seems to be a promising one, but he can never fully trust her. His lack of trust leads Ray to suspect that he is close to being shown the door and ousted for another man. The mistrust Ray has is an obstacle for their love. In the end, Ray is murdered and cannot get the chance to express his love for her which is ultimately sad and an example of the pessimism in the film. The last man to die in the end is Visser. He literally dies at her hands. All the males seemed to have been chasing after Abbey, and in the end died because of her.

Abbey is a black widow in all meanings of the words. She looses her husband, and Ray who tried to court her is dead. But in film noire conventions, the woman has an active role in causing the downfall of the males. What the entire film is about is Abbey and her extra-marital affair with Ray. She starts the chain of events that led to the murder of her husband and lover and the killing of Visser. She doesn’t know it, but she is the driving force behind the violence and tension of the film.

As film noire suggests by its very name, things are dark both thematically and visually. The bleak outlook on life is reflected in the sparse usage of light. Many of the scenes in Blood Simple occur during the night. By having things happen at night, the director can control the lighting scheme. Joel Coen and his cinematographer, Barry Sonnenfeld, return to the classical noire style in many of these night scenes. The classical style is very expressive with the use of light. Everything seems to happen beneath low key lighting. The use of expressive lighting usually happens in the interiors of cars. In the first scene after the introductory narration, Ray and Abbey are in a car driving down a mysterious stretch of road; they are lit in a low key lighting scheme. Their faces are practically in the dark and are illuminated by the instrumentation on the dashboard. Partial showing of people’s faces in film noire makes for the character to be more mysterious.

Low key lighting also utilizes pools of light to separate the important aspects on the screen. The final scenes of Blood Simple also have the expressive lighting that is found in classical film noire. They take place at Abbey’s apartment which has huge, undraped windows suitable for expressive lighting. When it’s dark in her apartment, menacing shadows are cast throughout the room. The final scene in which Abbey is stalked by Visser contains many examples of low key lighting, pools of light, and menacing shadows. During the scene, she hides among the shadows, and most of the time the only part of her figure which can be seen is part of her face. It is the way light and shadows are used that gives film noire that dark, brooding atmosphere. Another fitting example of expressive lighting within the climactic scenes is when Visser fires blindly at Abbey through the thin walls of the apartment. His shots go through the wall, and they leave behind holes in the wall from which light streams through into the dark. Again, this scene reflects the pessimistic attitude, because it happens at night when the world is more menacing and dangerous.

The darkness within the frame also pervades the theme of the movie. Blood Simple is very bleak, and it does not have a happy outlook towards life. Besides opening with a cynical narration, there are many points in the film that exude the bleak attitude common to all film noire movies. One such example is the unhappy ending to Abbey’s affair. Most everybody is dead, and her lover, as well as husband are on the casualty list. Marty, Ray, and Visser, the male characters, die after they have become involved with Abbey. Love doesn’t conquer all but gets shot through the heart by a high powered rifle. Another cynical example is the foreshadowing of death. To imagine oneself riddled with bullets is very morbid and pessimistic. Ray gets a glimpse of his fate when he finds a picture of himself murdered. What can be more bleak than having the knowledge that your fate is that of being murdered in the prime of your life? Even what people say is tinged with a pessimistic view of life. Marty at one point comments on his messed up life. He says, “I’m staying right here in hell.” His life is a living hell without Abbey, and although he doesn’t know it, but it is also a hell with her. Abbey, as a destructive force in the lives of her men, is also very pessimistic. The black widow theme surrounding her character plays on the darker side of male-female relations. Finally, the most fatalistic image from the picture is the closing shot. It is from the point of view of the dying Visser as he looks up at the bottom of a bathroom sink and watches as a drop of water is on the verge of falling on his head. The director seems to be stating that life is like the underside of a dirty sink; it’s all mildew and scum. The bathroom sink metaphor sums up the entire feeling of a downbeat life and cynical world which hangs over the heads of the characters of the film.

One convention of film noire which Blood Simple does not seem to address is the suffocating atmosphere of the city. It doesn’t exist in the film, because there is no city; it’s just the vast expanse of Texas used as the backdrop to the suspence. But still, the Coens are able to get across that Texas can be as oppressive a place as a big city through their choices of interiors. The Coens don’t need a huge city to overwhelm the characters and make them appear insignificant, because they supply their own oppressive areas. Enclosures exist throughout the film from the confines of the interior of a car to the claustrophobic effect of being buried alive. Nothing symbolizes the confinement of the characters in their own private hell than Marty’s premature burial. The Coens also use effective lighting to enhance the dark feel of the film. Darkness and shadow pervades most of the film and it can symbolize how confining life is. The Coens without an urban setting can still convey enclosures by subtle means which are hard to get at a first glance.

Being in a genre which has been a cliché for some time could lead you to suspect that Blood Simple is a predictable film. But when the Coen brothers decide to do film noire, they do it in style. They are extremely original in their approach to filmmaking, as well as to storytelling. The many twists of the plot and the double-crosses will leave you engrossed in the film. As an example of film noire, Blood Simple does a fine job in following many of the conventions of the older, more classic noire films, and it forges a different route compared with those classic films. In some sense Blood Simple fits the noire genre by not being a perfect example of the film noire style, because the genre’s films are varied, and it’s hard to pick one which best exemplifies the genre. With Joel and Ethan Coen at the helm though, film noire won’t be as easy to attach a cliched epitaph to.