Week 4: Thoughts

Our group discussion of Breathless (1960) was the most compartmentalized discussion yet. I feel like we had conflicting interpretations or ideas about the film. One of my group members loved the film. I didn't quite enjoy it. I feel some of our members didn't know what to think about it. The discussion questions branched off into other questions about the film and things like youth, responsibility, financial states and gender. I felt that the discussion I had with my group was more meaningful and enjoyable than my viewing of the film.


We talked about how Michel and Patricia lived luxuriously. However, they weren't very rich by any means. A criminal and starting journalist student aren't vicarious titles. Not to mention their literal financial states aren't great and are controlled by others. Michel is looking for someone who owes him money. Patricia's funds are conditional and from her parents. They are the opposite of what we imagine to be rich. However, I thought it was interesting (a point brought up in class) that their carelessness, sense of adventure and freedom was the true essence of extravagance. It wasn't their social disposition, but their youth and naivety that made them extravagant.  It's what gave them the conviction to steal nice cars and buy Dior. I think it's interesting that society would value youth over this and that it would be perceived as the ultimate extravagance. Honestly, the film says this perfectly. I doubt older people would be so willing and go through so much. Even if it ended badly for Michel, he went down brilliantly.

This is where I began to think about Patricia being cruel, because she seems so disconnected from Michel. She's really disconnected from reality. I felt she was more concerned with the excitement and adventure of it all. Her character reflects her interest in greatness and longing for excitement. She's interested in Europe's famous artists, their stories and paintings. She also seems to fantasize, via music and stories like Romeo and Juliette. Patricia is twenty years old, and her involvement with Michel is treated lazily. I thought this was strange because her involvement with him was stressing me out. If she were older, she may have taken it more seriously. She didn't seem to question Michel for stealing and murdering. Even in death, she seems indifferent towards him. I thought maybe she was trapped in a dream state, or desire to be in a fairy tale like story. Her encounter with Michel seems so removed to her, since she can and probably will go back to America. I imagined she would, and would remember her adventure distantly as she was there presently.

The funniest thing brought up during class was the mention of it being filmed with very loose preparation. True to my interpretation of it being raw, the movie was filmed on the streets of Paris with no blockages or extras. In the movie, you can see real citizens looking at the camera and breaking the "fourth wall". I thought that was excellent. They hid it well because I didn't notice during the film. People still do that today, actually. People "vlog" (blogging on a video) in public and post it on YouTube. During many vlogs that I've watched, I've seen people in the background staring or looking curiously as things happen. It's interesting how things like that transfer in modern ways. There was no extra reading assigned to this movie, so I feel all has been said and this movie is widely interpretive.

Week 5: The Graduate

I never want to listen to Scarborough Fair ever again. That was the weirdest of the songs and it was used three times. It sounded like it belonged in a renaissance fair. The Graduate (1967) had only music by Simon and Garfunkel and that was strange, since soundtracks usually have more than one artist. Maybe this was the beginnings of original soundtracks for films? That is so common today. I didn't mind most of the songs, it was only the Scarborough Fair. Actually I'm very used to Simon and Garfunkel. My mother has played Mrs. Robinson my whole life and I remember it from childhood. However, I had no idea there was a movie behind that whole song. I'll get back to that when I'm writing about my initial thoughts.

Walking into the film, I was expecting some sort of inspirational made-after-a-real-story movie. A title like The Graduate makes one think they're in for some sort of moral film about how going to school is great. Maybe about someone beating the odds and graduating. But I was taken aback and I was presented with something very scandalous and thought provoking. Benjamin, the protagonist, was something I think our entire class can relate to. He's our age, and very soon I will be in his situation since I am graduating this year. I understand the apathy and terror that comes with finishing school. The beginning scene set those feelings and solidified them with the party at Ben's house, with all of his parent's friends. The cluster of older people asking you a million questions about college, careers and relationships had me sympathizing for Ben. I've been like that myself during family gatherings; wanting to return to my room quietly and not talk. It captured the issues of being young very well. What I did not expect, was the affair.

This film was pleasantly surprising to me. It's plot wasn't predictable. I first thought it would be about graduating, then I thought it would just be an affair and it topped off in a way I didn't anticipate. I loved that. I prefer stories that keep me guessing and don't have obvious endings you can see within the first few minutes. I honestly thought Mrs. Robinson and Ben were going to fall in love. I had this brilliant moment of realization while watching the scene with Mrs. Robinson asking Ben to drive her home. My brain pieced together Simon and Garfunkel, my memories and suddenly I was like "Oh! That is the Mrs. Robinson!" That I've heard about via that song. It was a great moment, like some sort of life-long conclusion. I don't think my mother ever told me about this movie. Probably because it was a bit much for little me. I feel it was an adult movie. This predisposition made my sympathize with Mrs. Robinson because I remembered the lyrics. My opinion of her changed by the end of the movie.

The idea of a cougar is a very bold topic. I think an older woman dating a younger man is even scandalous now, so I'm pleased with how brave this movie is. I loved the imagery throughout the film. I felt the director took artistic licence. There are a few scenes that were visually stimulating and really drew me in. The one that I enjoyed the most was the montage of Mrs. Robinson and Ben's affair, while he's shown in the pool and in beds. I thought it was a great way to convey the passing of time, the feelings that were attached to the affair, Ben's summer and his uncertainty with himself. The pool and water gave me this sense of drowning and isolation, which I felt reflected Ben and even Mrs. Robinson. The Sound of Silence capped it off well, too.

I found the whole thing on YouTube and  I'm happy about that. I also liked this because I thought it was a clever way to show an affair without dragging it on or making it too graphic. I understand there were more restrictions with what could be shown on screen, this was a great way around it. 

What I didn't like about the film was the whole second arc with Elaine. I know that it had to happen, because of the purpose I think it serves, but it was the only point of the film where I was confused and wishing it would be done with. Coincidentally, the part with Scarborough Fair. Ben's attraction to Elaine was strange to me. He went out with her once, after promising that he wouldn't and suddenly he was in love. I thought it was stupid at first, because no one would love someone so quickly. No one rational, anyway. I felt Ben's obsession with her and wanting to marry her strange. I was uncomfortable with his feelings for Elaine because I felt they weren't sincere. It wasn't until he crashed the wedding, ran off with Elaine and was sitting in the back of the bus with her, that I understood why.

 His obsession with Elaine wasn't because he was genuinely in love with her. It was because she was taboo. I interpreted it as Ben wanting to rebel, very badly. Even from Mrs. Robinson, because although she is a thrill to him, she's also a parental figure and is still trying to tell him what to do. She forbids him from dating Elaine, which made Elaine enticing. I felt that Elaine also wanted to run away from her life and restriction, so they both fed off each other under the guise of love. I say this because at the end of the film, in the back of the bus they are both staring off. Their smiles fade, and they seem really disconnected. I felt that Ben and Elaine have no real direction in life and nothing was solved. The fun was over and now they'd really messed up their lives. 

I think finally being the love of my life would have me smiling a bit more than this. I also felt that Elaine was more relatable to Ben than Mrs. Robinson. So he chose her to run away with and to act out with. I say this because he tries to talk to Mrs. Robinson about school as if she's his age. Her lack of interest or engagement aged her to him. It was clear she was different, older and disenchanted with possibilities. After all, she was set in life and middle aged, while he was young and had more freedom. I think Ben thought he was in love and when Mrs. Robinson didn't reciprocate with that naivety, he lost interest in the affair. Maybe he would have ran away with Mrs. Robinson otherwise? I guess the past is doomed to repeat itself. Mistakes and quick decisions leave our characters trapped in the end. 

I loved this movie, I think it was great. It was hilarious (unintentionally I believe, in some places) and really made me think. A lot was said between the lines of the characters and I enjoyed it. Even when I started to stray in my opinion, they topped it off well and made it work. I can see why everyone quotes and references this movie. As I discovered later, after explaining it to my boyfriend when I got home, it was referenced in one of my favorite television shows... and I find that hilarious. He pointed it out to me.

I'm ending this post with the song Mrs. Robinson because why not? It's pretty good.

Week 3: Rear Window Ethics

The most thought provoking thing out of our second class was the little touches in Rear Window that I barely noticed. They give the film little touches that make me appreciate it more. We all had a good laugh when looking back at the film and marveling at James Stewart's faces through the film. Rear Window seems to be one of those films that has lots of little hints and details that I love. "Easter Eggs" as they are called today. My favorite was what a student pointed out to us, where there's a foreshadowing of the murder next door via the dialogue. While

One of the more discussion provoking theme around Rear Window is the idea of the gaze. We are made aware of this via the reading assigned for this which I mentioned in my previous post about Rear Window. I've read Laura Mulvey's essay before about how Rear Window is, in her words, a literal example of the Male Gaze in film. The Male Gaze is something I am not new to. Throughout my studies here at Mount Allison, I've analyzed the sexist connotations within artwork throughout the centuries. The concept of the Gaze is something we are not conscious of and is definitely an underlying thing that must be pointed out to be addressed. I think this is because when we look at a painting, we are unaware that our viewing is a piece of the experience.

I feel that understand i understand the point Mulvey is saying, but I don't agree with it. I was more partial to her opinion without seeing the film. I won't deny that there are clear examples of sexism in this film. I mean, Detective Doyle is straight up belittling Lisa for her gender and "woman intuition". The part about a woman never leaving her favorite handbag or wedding ring seemed a little questionable as well. However, I do not see Jefferies as a preying character or an active misogynist. I don't believe he was thinking of the politics of society during the film, or Lisa for that matter. Lisa was a secondary character who happened to be his love interest. I don't think he wasn't interested in her because she wasn't in his "male gaze" but rather, because her concerns were on marriage, socializing and her fashion career. It had nothing to do with photography, his job, life or the murder. There was a boundary between them and it was interesting that he wasn't totally enthralled with her, given that she is a very conventionally attractive woman who wants his love. Most men would be glad to have a woman like Grace Kelly in their presence, let alone interested. It isn't fair to say that he wasn't concerned at all, because he was well aware of her as a person.

I think he was ignoring her because she wasn't relative to more pressing matters. Her concerns were not concerns to Jefferies and initially, she wasn't involved with his viewing. When she became involved, they had more in common and thus he took interest in her because he found something to relate to. In fact, his focus on her while she was in his gaze was fear for her safety, rather than a sexual curiosity. I think it was her bravery and belief in him that perked his attention. As I said, they had something in common. Reading into the camera looking like a phallic symbol is a bit much, since, there is nothing inherently sexual about Jefferies or his curiosity. He's not motivated to look out the window via that.  Otherwise, he would be focusing on the more sexualized characters like Miss Torso. Even Stella wonders why he isn't focused on Miss Torso. That should be the indication. I feel that there's a danger to applying modern politics to older things. Social context changes with every year, and one of the most important things I've learned while studying history is not to apply modern problems to the past. Rear Window is arguably modern, but for film, it is ages away. Especially for feminism, which would only take off a few decades later. Mulvey's perspective is one that applies future ideas and context to the past. I feel that isn't fair. It's stretching the truth, but opens up an interesting discussion. Now that I think of older paintings of scantily clad women, who were painted for the purpose of the male gaze, the context of Rear Window is quite different. There's the aspect of horror and murder there. If Grace Kelly is eye-candy, it's to the cinematography and audience viewing the movie. Not the characters and not through the window.

Week 4: Breathless

Breathless (1960) wasn't anything that I expected. Going into the film, I didn't think twice about it. Honestly I was more concerned with the fact that my mom was visiting and that she wanted to go into Moncton very badly. Bad enough to ask me to miss the screening. I got to the library just in time. When the movie started, I was taken aback by how quick everything seemed. The jump cuts were all over the place and left me feeling confused yet intrigued. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't intrigued. I haven't seen an older movie shot so differently before. To my pleasant surprise it was literally in French and I was happy that I know French. It was easier for me to follow the story. Once my brain adjusted to the language, I watched it without reading the subtitles. I suppose my experience was a little different from someone who doesn't speak the language. 

So what did I enjoy? I loved the rawness of the film. I could tell it didn't have a huge budget from how public the entire movie was. The only private spaces used in the film were very small and brief. There wasn't any large sets, or fabricated areas. It was just Paris in the sixties. I'm always curious about how people acted, dressed and went about their day in the past. I started wondering about my grandparents at this time, because they would have been as young as the actors and just married. I liked how funny Michel's character was, despite doing terrible things. He tried so hard to maintain this image and I could feel that. I think the actor did an excellent job. I liked Patricia because of her aesthetic and her interest in Europe. I resonate with that since I am a student and want to have similar experiences abroad. I also thought the way it  was filmed was exciting to watch because I felt like I was watching film's earlier progress. Like looking through an old sketchbook and seeing earlier drawings that you did where you're trying out new things that you're a master at today.

What I did not enjoy about this film was the characters themselves. Initially, I could stand them. However the bickering, circling dialogue got on my nerves. Particularly during the scene in the Bedroom. They kept talking about the same thing over and over with different synonyms. They weren't talking about anything large, in particular. It's like they had a circuit routine of topics that never got concluded or answered. Michel got on my nerves because of how mean and pushy he was towards Patricia. Even his criminal acts like stealing cars, money and killing didn't shock me as much as how he treated her. He reminded me of a child, frustrated for not getting his way. He was so lecherous and by today's standards, extremely creepy. I thought Patricia was going to be stronger in this film. I felt that she had potential. I didn't even mind how she was jumping ahead in her career via sexism, since it's pretty true to the era. I'm not going to plaster current politics to the past. She became annoying to me because I felt like she had a vapid personality. Perhaps that was the intentional and if so, it was done well. She wasn't conclusive in any of her choices, or towards Michel. I thought for awhile that she was on his side, but then she called the police on him. It felt unrealistic because I doubt anyone calling the police would casually tell the person they ratted them out. The last technical thing that bothered me was that the subtitles did not convey the dialogue effectively at times. The translations were often bad and gave out a different message or context. I understand that you can't quite translate French to English but I felt they were done quickly. 

So I know I've been very critical of this movie. I don't think I would watch it again on my free time, perhaps if I wanted to analyze it again. I feel like maybe I missed something about the entire story. I can look past my personal tastes and appreciate it for what it is. I feel it's the pioneer for jump cuts and the use of different camera angles. As confusing as it may be, it worked for the film and I can see how this would inspire later cinematography. Not everything will be to my liking, nor as perfect. I'm definitely spoiled by refined methods of film. It's like how I appreciate silent films. I think they're really creative, innovative and imaginative. It's great how they found ways to tell stories with limited access to points of reference or effects. However, I can't stand to watch them. I  tried watching Phantom of the Opera (1925) and I couldn't do it. I love Phantom of the Opera's modern renditions. It's the same situation here with Breathless. Maybe if Breathless was redone I'd enjoy it more. It has potential to be more thought provoking via it's characters. That's probably my own bias of focusing on fiction that has heavy character development. 

Week 3: Rear Window

The second movie we watched was Rear Window directed by Alfred Hitchcock. No doubt a classic that I've heard about my whole life. My mother is always making references to Hitchcock and admittedly, I never took the time to appreciate his work. That may seem terrible, but it's because of the era his movies were filmed. I expected a very slow and dry movie, prior to the screening of the film last Friday. I can barely stand the slow progression of late sixties/early seventies movies so I couldn't even imagine the fifties. However, I was pleasantly surprised.

 I was familiar with the movie through references and through another class. Last year I took Women and Art in Society where we studied how women were reflected in artwork. Interestingly enough, I've already studied and read Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Through a feminist lens, I've noted the phallic symbolism and the relationship between Jefferies and Lisa. The way in which we read it in Women and Art in Society, we confirmed that it was an example of the male gaze in film. However, my observation and opinion of this film changed with my own viewing of it. I'll return to that subject later.

Over all, I thought the film was excellent. It intrigued me deeply because of the unique circumstances of the story. I never imagined that a film, shot in such a small space, could successfully do this. As I watched, I also became invested with the lives of the characters who lived in the apartment complex. I thought that was clever, since, Jefferies is obsessed with them too. I felt a similar concern.. or nosiness for their lives. The more I saw the progression of the neighbors, the more I wondered about them. It was almost frustrating to not know the full stories behind all the characters that were shot in the film. For example, the newly weds who kept their window closed and covered most of the time, with the exception of the husband looking out the window.. I don't know why, but that was really irking me through the whole movie. Similarly with Ms. Torso. She was in her apartment with a few men and I remember thinking "Huh, what's going on." It's almost as if there were multiple possibilities of drama for Jefferies to witness. I feel that if I get drawn in, attached and worried while watching a movie, then it's a good movie. The director, crew, actors and editors have done their job. It was very suspenseful. A healthy amount of suspense that I enjoyed.

Now, aside from what I liked about it, I hated the fact that it was a little anti-climatic. Considering my disposition for older movies, it impressed me, beyond expectation. However, I felt the confrontation between Jefferies and Mr. Thorwald to be less than satisfying. It was funny, actually. I wasn't feeling threatened in that moment, despite the creepy lighting and danger. The contorting face of Mr. Thorwald as he's temporarily blinded via the flashing bulbs just made me laugh. It was too quiet and too repetitive. It became a gimmick to me rather than a threat. Somehow it negated the danger. Another thing that made me feel like "Oh, this is cliche" is when the dog died. I find it amusing that an animal dying is the epitome and threshold for all that is evil. There was more distress in that moment than any other. I was talking about this with my younger brother and he mentioned to me there's actually a website dedicated to "If the dog dies" in movies, you can look at that website here. I think you'll find it entertaining. Not that animal cruelty is funny, it's just weird how humans categorize that as a tragedy compared to other events in movies. Even human related distress or death. 

I give Rear Window an 8/10 on my list. I'm not sure if I should rate the movies but hey, I will. It's fun. I take two off because of the anti-climatic endings and slight plot holes. For a fifties movie, it was great and I'm glad I got to experience it in the library theater. 

Week 2: Citizen Kane

Gracious, where do I start. This wasn't a good week for me. I missed the screening of Citizen Kane because I messed up my timing and was involved with personal matters which were quite unfortunate and made me upset. I'll do my best to write about Citizen Kane.

Citizen Kane is something I've heard referenced all my life. Some of my favorite movies, shows and even YouTube stars have made jokes about it. I had an indication about it's existence. I knew it was a movie and I already knew about the Rose Bud thing since it was referenced multiple times. That somehow disenchanted it and made it comical to me.

Week 1: Introductions

Originally, I had begun this journal in a physical notebook, however, I thought the blog format would be much more stimulating and enjoyable to read. Now, I am going to reiterate what I'd originally written. I'm pretty happy to do so anyway... I may have made a few mistakes.


Welcome to my Reading and Viewing Journal! Before I get into my thoughts about the content of this course, I would like to get better acquainted. The brief introduction each of us gave on the first day of class wasn't really enough. I found, at least. My name is Felicia Mae Grant, I am a fourth year Art History student and avid lover of fiction. I am a very creative, visual person and I like any medium that encompasses this. As far as films, I don't have a specific genre that I stick to. I have a very open mind and broad interests. My favorite movie would have to be Labyrinth (1986) by Jim Henson, starring Jennifer Connelly and David Bowie.

 I hope I can bring that into the course somehow later. I've seen it over a hundred times and I feel I could probably do some justice with it. In terms of watching things, I find lately I've been gravitating to episodic stories. I notice there's a meshing of television and movies, or a new method of creating television shows. They tend to be more cinematic, and while trying to recall the last movie that I watched, I realized this.

So far, I haven't bought the textbook because of the price which is out of my budget. I'm not sure how I'm going to deal with that, I may get an older edition. I tried my best to find alternatives and am still working on it. At the moment, I'm more focused on the provided readings and the films. Along with my thoughts, I will also include notes and different things that I'm learning along the way so I can keep an archive, of sort. I hope my entries will not be boring. I hope my non-academic commentary and writing style which is allowed in this context, will be amusing or interesting to read. I know you have to read through dozens of these! I will be including other media in my journals, as well.