Casablanca

          Over the course of history, films have always had mixed reviews. However, I think I have found one movie that is the exception: Casablanca. I have scoured the internet for negative reviews of this movie and came up almost completely empty handed. Almost everyone views Casablanca as one of the best films of all time. After all, it is ranked #3 on AFI’s 100 Years... 100 Movies - 10th Anniversary Edition list. I am now taking on the impossible task of arguing why Casablanca should not be regarded as one of the greatest movies of all time.

          In summary, Casablanca is about a man named Rick (Humphrey Bogart) who runs a popular gin joint in Casablanca, Morocco during World War II. One day, a former lover of his, Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) shows up in his bar with her husband Victor (Paul Henreid). The couple asks Rick to provide them with safe passage from Nazi controlled Europe to America. Rick must decide if he wants to help the couple escape, attempt to rekindle his relationship with his old lover, or let the couple die in Casablanca.

          Overall, the plot of the film is mediocre. Because Casablanca was created in another era, the style of writing, acting, and directing was completely different from today. The writing is very dialogue heavy and very boring. Aaron Sorkin, writer of The Newsroom, Moneyball, The Social Network, The West Wing, and A Few Good Men, writes extremely dialogue heavy screenplays, but he manages to make them fast paced and interesting. 

          One of the most important features in creating a successful drama is making the audience care about the characters. Blake Snyder, author of the book “Save The Cat!,” says, “...liking the person we go on a journey with is the single most important element in drawing us into the story.” One way to do this is through a “save the cat” scene. Snyder says, “It’s the scene where we meet the hero and the hero does something -- like saving a cat -- that defines who he is and makes us, the audience, like him.”

          One of my biggest problems with Casablanca is that I feel absolutely no emotional connection to Rick. There is no moment in the film where I feel like rooting for him. Rick has a broken heart over a girl, but I am unable to sympathize with his emotions because the relationship between the character and the audience never began. Casablanca had the chance to fix this problem early on in the movie, but the “save the cat” scene happened about half way into the film. By not including a “save the cat” scene early on, the movie failed to emotionally connect the characters with the audience.

          For example, a young couple is trying to acquire visa’s to leave Casablanca, but they have run out of money. They go to Rick for help who tells them to place all of their chips on the roulette table on 22 black. The croupier hears Rick say this, and lets the couple win twice in a row. This simple scene shows that Rick truly has compassion for others. If this scene happened within the first few minutes of Casablanca I may have felt more connected to Rick and thus enjoyed the movie more.

          Casablanca has been said to be perfectly cast, but I couldn’t disagree more. Bogart and Bergman play their parts adequately, but I find it hard to enjoy watching Bogart’s acting. Bogart felt stiff when playing Rick; his lines seemed a little forced, and his performance felt fake. Casting great actors such as Ronald Reagan (who was almost casted) or Jimmy Stewart could have fixed this problem.

          Along with mediocre acting comes mediocre directing. Casablanca’s director, Michael Curtiz has been criticized for only focusing on the visual aspect of a film, while overlooking the story and characters. Aljean Harmetz has quoted Curtiz saying, "Who cares about character? I make it go so fast nobody notices," in Harmetz’s book, Round Up The Usual Suspects: The Making of “Casablanca”. This clearly shows that Michael Curtiz was an ignorant, amateur director. On the other hand, director Howard Hawks perfectly described his job when he said, “I'm a storyteller, that's the chief function of a director. And they're moving pictures, let's make 'em move!”

          The only positive thing that Casablanca has, is its cultural relevance. Released in the middle of World War II, the film was able to connect with many audiences. If the film were released a few years earlier or later, I am certain that its overall success would have been poor. During this period of time, the German Expressionism Era, Siegfried Kracauer and mise-en-scene became more popular. Kracauer wrote the book, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film, which helped create the foundation of modern film criticism. Also, Casablanca used many examples of film-noir which enhanced many of the emotions in the film, making it more popular. Mise-en-scene, or “what is in the frame,” became more popular with this film. The placement of the lights, actors, and objects in the film made it more dramatic along with creating more of an artistic atmosphere.

          For the most part, Casablanca is loved by everyone and is not criticized for any reason. However, the writing, acting, and directing are mediocre at best and the film is incredibly outdated. In the future, I hope I will learn to appreciate Casablanca, despite my grievances toward the film.

Dexter Season 7 Episode 2 "Sunshine & Frosty Swirl"

          Well episode two starts directly after the conclusion of episode one where Dexter tells Deb he is a serial killer. Dexter follows Deb after she runs from his apartment to vomit in the street. What a perfect reaction. I first noticed that once they started talking to each other, Deb was disgusted by Dexter. She was absolutely horrified that her father taught her adoptive brother how to kill people. This scene must have taken forever to write because it is absolutely flawless. Deb punching Dexter was the perfect reaction to Dexter’s sassy, “well what are you going to do now,” question. It was definitely something Deborah would do.

          I was pleasantly surprised when Deb brought up the topic of rehab. I didn’t expect the episode to head in this direction to happen which made it even more enjoyable. While Harry tried to channel Dexter’s killing toward evil people, Deb is trying to stop it all together. This is perfectly seen when Deb asks Dexter, “If you can channel your urges, why can’t you control them?” We have seen Dexter attempt to stop killing in the past, but he didn’t try hard enough. Now that he has Deb to keep him accountable, maybe he’ll succeed. However, forcing Dexter to enter Deb’s rehab could backfire. Addicts need to enter rehab for themselves otherwise its a lot harder to stay clean. 

          What probably stuck out to me the most was when Deb said she still loved Dexter. She is a Lieutenant at Miami Metro Homicide that loves her serial killer brother. Can you think of anything more genuine and ironic? Sibling love: nothing is better.

          LaGuerta is getting dangerously close to finding out that Travis was murdered. It seems like this happens almost every season. I’m starting to wish that LaGuerta was killed in season one like in the books.

          Deb seems to be replacing Harry and his teachings. The “Code of Deb” has already started with the first two rules: be honest and tell Deb when the Dark Passenger is tempting him.

          I’m not 100% sure what Louis’ role is in the show but he is definitely creepy. I’m pretty sure he knows Dexter’s secret and he’s not afraid of him. Maybe because he’s a serial killer too! Anyway, I hope that LaGuerta will catch onto Dexter but Louis will get caught instead. Its basically the exact same situation that Doakes was in.

          Dexter has taken it upon himself to stop Louis. Instead, he should be honest with Deb and Deb will stop him. Then all of his bases will be covered. However, this obviously wont happen because its the easy way out and it won’t thrilling.

          Well Dexter obviously didn’t choose to go that route after he drugged his sister. Not a smart move dude. Somehow, you managed to not kill Louis and called your drugged up sister for help. I’ve got to say I’m proud. I’m rarely (if ever) proud of Dexter but I am excited that I am. I would say that Dexter is changing but in reality, I highly doubt it. Throughout the whole show, Dexter has barely changed. The code is the same, his method and routines are the same, the only thing that changed was in season four when he realized he could have a family and be a serial killer. Well that ended well didn’t it? I thought Dexter might become religious in season six, but Brother Sam was killed off halfway into the season and things went back to normal. It is a little late to see a radical change in Dexter, but I am completely open to the idea.

          For the first time, we see Ray Stevenson as the main antagonist. He’s charming, business oriented, charismatic, a great actor (unlike Colin Hanks), and a brutal killer. I can’t wait to see where his character goes and how he becomes more evil.

          Overall, Randall the prisoner seemed to hold a lot of the core beliefs and values of this episode. Dexter thought Randall was able to change from being a killer to a normal human being. However, we learned that he just wanted to have a few days of happiness before he killed himself. This could be foreshadowing the ending of Dexter, but it could also be a false ending. Either way, I am excited for this season and what it will bring.

Looper

          When it comes to time travel movies, Looper was one of best. The film had a fantastic plot with solid writing. Overall, it was an entertaining film that I would watch again. 
          Like most movies, I have a few problems and critiques. The concept of Loopers was extraordinary, but I felt that this main aspect of the movie dropped off within the second act. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) went from being an active character to a reactive character. In the first act, he failed to “close the loop” by killing his future self and began to hunt his future self down. When the second act rolls around, Joe sits around at a farmhouse and waits for Old Joe (Bruce Willis) to come to him. While it made sense for Joe to do this, it wasn’t entertaining to watch.
          I have got to say, the first act was phenomenal. There was so much information given and the movie was done so well that I believed all of it. This can be really hard to do with science fiction, things happening in the future, or using time travel.
          In the second act, a lot of the focus is taken away from Old Joe and directed toward Sara and Cid. While these characters are important, Old Joe holds a higher rank in important characters and deserves more screen time. Because Bruce Willis’ character was not focused on enough, I began to not care what happened to him. Not caring about the characters is the biggest mistake a writer can make. 
          One thing that I found to be incredibly fascinating was the use of telekinesis. So many dots connected in my head when we found out that Cid could kill people with his telekinesis while the other 10% of the population could only lift quarters. I then realized how Cid became the one man army that the Rainman was said to be. 
          The fact that Joseph Gordon-Levitt figured out that letting Old Joe kill Sara would result in the eventual “closed loop,” was brilliant. It was so eloquently written and it made perfect sense that Joe had to kill himself. My first thought was, “couldn’t he just blow his (and Old Joe’s) gun holding arm off? That way he would survive and be able to live a happy life. 
          The ending was satisfying because Old Joe kept Cid from becoming the Rainmaker, Joe kept Old Joe from killing Cid, and Sara was able to teach Cid to use his powers for good. However, killing off the 2 main characters was kind of unsatisfying. I at least wanted to see one of them end up happy.
          Also, I realized that all of the sex, drugs, and nudity was absolutely unnecessary. The story could have functioned efficiently without any of those aspects. Also, if the blood and gore were edited out, Looper could have achieved a PG-13 rating, making it higher grossing and more viewable.

          Overall, Looper was entertaining, but I expected more character development and action. The acting, makeup, story, and dialogue were all great, but I expected there to be more interaction between Joe and Old Joe. Turning Looper into a ‘buddy movie’ probably wouldn’t have worked out too well, but I felt like they at least deserved more screen time together. I was so interested to see what they could talk about with each other. I would definitely recommend Looper to people and am interested in discussing similar or different opinions regarding the movie.

The "Classics"

I would like to start by defining the word “classic.” Using Dictionary.com, I received 20 different definitions. The first definition of the word “classic” said: “Of the first or highest quality, class, or rank.” This definition without a doubt applies to many films that are referred to as “classic” like 12 Angry Men, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Psycho. Because these are some of the earliest films made, they are referred to as “the best.” While they were revolutionary for their time, they simply cannot compete with the most up to date films. 

  Imagine watching the news on a black and white television from the 1950’s. Now compare that to watching Avatar in 3D IMAX. Which one is better? Quality wise, IMAX is immensely better than a 1950’s black and white TV. Both forms of entertainment were incredibly revolutionary for their time. Mass producing TV’s and being able to put them in every home in the 1950‘s was amazing, but so is the 3D motion capture technology specifically created for Avatar. While our modern day technology beats the 1950’s in quality, both are examples of radical change within the entertainment industry. 

In 1895, the Lumiere brothers created one of the first films, which showed people exiting a factory at the end of the day. They showed the film, Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory, to an audience and those who viewed it were absolutely amazed. If this same black and white film were shown to an audience today, they would say, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a bunch of people walking.” The difference between these two situations is exposure. In 1895 when the Lumiere Brothers created the first films, a person’s exposure to film was absolutely zero, but now, a person has seen dozens, if not hundreds, of movies. This principle of exposure shows that early films such as 12 Angry Men, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Psycho are partially thought of as “the best films ever” because there were very few films before then. 

  While this first definition of “classic” is good, I prefer to look at other definitions. These definitions include words such as “basic,” “fundamental,” “traditional,” “typical,” and “standard.” These “classic” movies are here to serve as a guide. They are important to the overall industry of filmmaking only because they represent the start of the industry. For example, I absolutely love Apple products. They are efficient, reliable, and high quality, but I wouldn’t say that the first Apple computer from 1976 is one of the best computers made.

  While some old films are good, I find that most of them are incredibly boring. They were experimenting with what audiences enjoyed watching, and that process took a long time. Movies like The Godfather are horribly painful to watch because of their incredible length and lack of compelling storytelling. Some of the few movies, at that length, that are worth watching are The Lord Of The Rings movies, The Green Mile, Titanic, and the Director’s Cut of Kingdom Of Heaven. While these are all incredibly long films, they actually have interesting stories unlike The Godfather.

  Are old films so great because the directors were brilliant, the first of their kind, or because they’re dead? Once a person dies, their art usually skyrockets in value. Maybe these directors weren’t actually all that good to begin with. Now that they are dead, nobody would be able to interview, scrutinize, or ridicule them. It’s a lot like the Founding Fathers. They were the catalyst of something great, which is the reason why they are so respected. If someone duplicated their work now, they probably wouldn’t amount to much. Some idiot directors have had decent careers copying other “classic” idiot directors.

One of my favorite series is the James Bond series. While I enjoy watching all of the films, I prefer to watch the more recent ones because they are higher in visual quality, they’re more relatable to me, and they (usually) have more entertaining stories. I understand that the old films were the beginning, but they simply do not compare to the more recent films.

  In almost every situation, the word “classic” should be avoided at all costs. If it needs to be used, it should only reference the “basic,” “fundamental,” “traditional,” “typical,” and “standard” definition. Most people would agree that the old films are important. They are a part of our history and should be respected. However, it is time to move on, look toward the future, and embrace the films that we have today.

Dexter Season 7 Episode 1 "Are You...?"

  Ok so I enjoyed the beginning but I figured that there would be a lot more screaming and confusion from Deb. Dexter did a really good job at playing the “I’ll lose my job, life, and Harrison” card in order to get Deb on his side. And just like Dexter always does, he wiggles his way out of impossible situations through lying and manipulation. 

   I’m so happy the writers included Dexter’s getaway pack. Every smart person in this situation has got to have one. The fact that he hid it in the drywall shows just how much he wanted to keep his apartment in season 4.
  I found it kind of strange that the writers killed off Mike Anderson. There was no emotional connection to the character and I don't understand why he was killed instead of a random cop. Maybe we will find out later.

  So right in the heat of this episode, Dexter decides to go hunt for another victim. Really? Of all the times to hunt for another killer, its after your sister caught you murdering the last one? Its when your sister is constantly digging in your past and questioning you on how and why you killed him? Yes, I understand the need to kill is strong, but you’re going to need to hold off for a while.

  At first I thought Dexter was crazy to fly to Budapest to catch some random guy, but then I saw that he hadn’t even left the boarded the plane yet.  Also, I’m pretty sure that you can’t just walk through airport security with syringes. Well maybe you can considering a woman accidentally brought a concealed gun on a plane without the TSA noticing last week. For some crazy reason, Dexter decides to kill a man in one of the most watched public places in America. Either he’s insane or reckless.

  One of my biggest problems with seasons 5, 6, and now 7 is that Astor and Cody aren’t in the show. Two major supporting characters are poorly written off of the show and are never mentioned by their Aunt Deb or Step Father Dexter? Disappointing.

  While I have criticized and torn this episode apart, I believe that everyone deserves forgiveness and a second chance. This season is going to be amazing. The last scene of this episode has redeemed all of my hard feelings. Dexter. I’m sorry I doubted you. I was wrong and you were brilliantly right... Again.