Repo Man Exta Credit

Repo Man provided a new style of film as well as a new part of the Cold War Timeline to explore. The film style of this film was very gritty, looking like there was almost a layer of dirt on the lens. The film introduces us to the “punk” style that was popular in 80’s. What I found to be particularly interesting was how the film mocked the idea of the punks rebelling against nothing. The group of rebels wanted to do anything to achieve s sense of excitement, robbing liquor stores, stealing cars, etc.

The main character Otto gets caught up on the life of the repo man, participating in a case to find a special Malibu with some alien forces in the trunk. Throughout the film Otto uses the life of the repo man to rebel, searching for adventure in the confines of his mediocre town. In the final scene of the film we see Otto taking off in the atomic car, leaving the earth altogether in search of something more.

I feel that the atomic car represents something very vital during this time period in the cold war. During the 80’s the atomic arms race was at its height, with the United States and the Soviet Union in competition for the most weapons. When examining the film we can interpret the stolen Malibu as the atomic weapons every country was chasing. Everyone wanted to be in possession of the weapons, but were they really reading for the outcome? Symbolically the atomic car taking off at the end of the film represents the flight of atomic weapons and how the outcome is still uncertain. The power of the car temps people to chase its power, and when in the wrong hands can have grave consequences.

Repo Man served as a great bridge into the era of the 80’s a time of punks, misfits, and no real reason to rebel but the act of rebelling itself.

Blue Velvet

I have to say that Blue Velvet was a great way to end the semester and the final stop of the time line of the Cold War Era. I found the filming technique of David Lynch very interesting and refreshing. I loved how he mixed this sense of darkness and mystery with hyper saturation and obnoxiously bright colors. The film noir style of the film added to the overall sense of darkness present throughout the piece. The acting styles of the characters were so outrageous and over the top that it contributed to both the mystery and intensity of the film.

As we talked about in class, the 80’s, especially during the Reagan Administration, were a time where people wanted a return to the 50’s ideals that had once been prevalent during American culture. I disagree with the reading, and I believe that Lynch very purposely over exaggerates the 50’s ideals particularly at the beginning and end of the film. In the beginning of the film we see images of these happy suburban people, a man on a fire truck smiling and waving, yellow tulips blossoming along the white picket fence. From that point the films seems to take a dramatic shift into the film noir style almost intentionally dramatic. I interpreted this shift to be almost a symbol for the underlying darkness of the Regan administration and the 80’s as a whole. While Reagan focused on a return to 50’s ideals and nostalgia, he was also at the forefront of the nuclear arms race with Russia during the peak of the Cold War. I believe that the dark film noir style Lynch uses emphasizes the underlying darkness of both the country and people in general.

I found the characters to be fascinating, especially when we examine them in terms of what the article named “the others”. Jeffery represented the normal all American suburban young man, home from college, exemplifying all the manners of a well brought up young man. However, as the film progresses, he loses his sense of innocence and seems to transform into the “other” he was trying to stop. Jeffery gives into temptation, going into Dorothy’s apartment and watching her be raped. Not only does he watch, he gives into the temptation of her and the sexuality of physical violence. Jeffery is constantly sitting on the line of good/ bad. Jeffery’s character is not really sure what is normal by the end of the film. While he works to bring down the “other” known as Frank, he slips more and more into Frank and Dorothy’s world. I believe that this character representation is a great example of the uncertainty of youth rebellion during this time period and the idea of there not really being anything to rebel against but the unknown, those who were unlike the mold of everyone else.

Additionally, the characters of Sandy and Dorothy play both parts of the victim and of the temptress. Dorothy, while a victim of crime, takes enjoyment in the violence, asking for it on an occasion with Jeffery. Dorothy doesn’t want to get Jeffery involved, yet clings to him and needs to be with him. The character of Sandy plays a similar role. While appearing to be just an innocent suburban blonde, she is the one who introduces Jeffery to the mystery, tempting him while at the same time keeping her distance. Jeffery holds power on each woman, relating the 50’s ideal of men having power over the weaker woman. Through these character evaluations we can see how blurred the lines of good and bad have become.

Blue Velvet used the film noir style as well as great contrast in color and lighting to portray the 80’s during the end of the Cold War era. Lynch’s use of high intensity acting and characterization to present his viewers with the complexity of the human character and the idea of the “other” taking root in ourselves.

Apocalypse Now

Surprisingly, Apocalypse Now is the first film I have seen regarding the Vietnam War, and I have to say I was very impressed with both the technical elements of the film as well as the relevance to the time period.

To summarize, Apocalypse Now is a 1979 American epic war film set during the Vietnam War. The plot revolves around two US Army special operations officers, one of whom, Captain Benjamin L. Willard (Martin Sheen) of, is sent into the jungle to assassinate the other, the rogue and presumably insane Colonel Walter E. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) of Special Forces. Captain Willard embarks on a journey through the jungles of Vietnam, coming across the destruction and pillage of the war.

After completing the reading, I was interested to learn the connection between the film and the novel Heart of Darkness. As the author states, “Apocalypse Now bridges the gap between literature and history by "transposing" Heart of Darkness with the Vietnam War through the incorporation of images, narrative, and discourse provided by Herr in Dispatches”.  I found it interesting that the film was based on the novel, but added its own elements to the base of the story and complexity of the characters.

Technically, the film composition was beautiful. The shot of the helicopters approaching the village with the soundtrack increasing was a great element to add to the film. The different camera angles really added to the dram of the film. I especially loved the use of light in the scenes with Kurtz and how the lighting added to the mystery and complexity of the character.

The characters themselves were fascinating. Willard emerges in the film as this heartless man, made cold and firm from the war, yet unwilling to go back to his normal life, the jungle calling to him. The article states, “He also embodies the senseless destructive power that characterized the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War mainly with his nearly addicted affinity for napalm; at one point, he muses: "napalm son, nothing else in the world smells like that". Willard represents the emotional detachment that was seen during the war, epically from those with PTSD. As the film progresses we see his character evolve slightly, mostly though his meeting with Kurtz, and his understanding of his mental state. While he still kills Kurtz, we are given the sense of understanding between the two victims of war.

Kurtz’s lecture his philosophy of war, humanity, and civilizations were very interesting and added an important element to the film.  The use of Kurtz’s final lines “the horror, the horror” left a resonating theme to the impact of the war on the psyche of the men involved and the nation as a whole.

I believe Apocalypse Now is a great representation of the time period of the Vietnam War. The film presented the audience with images of these young men going into this war with either a hardened mentality or an innocence that would soon be lost.  As Willard led these men on his mission, they had no idea where they were even going, or what mission they were fulfilling, but all that mattered was that a commanding officer had been given orders and they were chosen to follow them through. The various characters represented different men in various stages of life and maturity, giving the audience a realistic glimpse into the faces of the Vietnam War.  The idea of Kurtz creating his own civilization in the middle of the madness going on around him and inside of him was a poetic representation of the mental turmoil affecting hundreds of men returning from the war.

The film brought to light the many emotional states of man and the true horror of the Vietnam War.

Stange

I’m not completely sure where to start on this post..so here it goes.. To be completely honest I really did not care for this film, so it is ironic that I’m leading the discussion this week. I’ll try to put my main feelings about the plot behind me to focus on the overall theme and technical aspects of the picture. Maybe the film just went over my head, but I’m going to try to understand how the reading could call Dr. Stangelove “One of the most fascinating and important films of the 1960’s”. 

To summarize the film, USAF Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, the commander of Burpelson Air Force Base, initiates a plan to attack the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons in the paranoid belief that there is a Communist conspiracy. The majority of the film then takes place in the war room of the Pentagon where General Buck Turgidson briefs President Merkin Muffley. Turgidson tries to persuade Muffley to seize the moment and eliminate the Soviet Union by launching a full-scale attack on remaining Soviet defensive capabilities. Muffley then rebukes him and summons the Soviet ambassador, Alexei DeSadeski, who calls Soviet Premier Dmitri Kisov on the "Hot Line", and gives the Soviets information to help them shoot down the American planes. He also states that a “doomsday device would initiate should any attck be made on the Soviet Union. That’s when Dr. Strangelove, a former Nazi and weapons expert, makes his entrance. To wrap the plot up, the code that when used would disband the attack is finally retrieved and relayed to all planes but one, whose ingoing and outgoing messaging machine was destroyed in an attack.  Ultimately, the plane drops the missile and after a delayed response the dooms day device is activated, leaving the audience with views of exploding bombs and mushroom clouds in the sunset.

What I did like about the film was how it seemed to me to cross many governmental lines. The film portrayed the government and the United States Air force as almost incompetent and to having very little emotional reactions to what was going on. I found it really interesting that in the end, the president of the United states would be taking advice from a former Nazi on how to handle the situation. I think the filmmakers used the fear that still existed in many Americans and played on the idea that we could be thrown into a war by the actions of one mentally ill general and a series of miscommunications.  

The reading definitely helped me relate more to the film. The director of the film had strong beliefs on the topics of war and the media. “In his mature work Kubrick has returned constantly to one of the gravest dilemmas of modem industrial society: the gap between man's scientific and technological skill and his social, political, and moral inep-titude”. The idea that there is a gap between the scientific and technological skill and social and moral beliefs is an idea that has always been a part of the war and idea that I think Krubrick was trying to bring to the forefront in this film.  I believe he was trying to show how the greatest of technological advancements and war machines are useless in the hands of those not morally ready to use them or handle the outcome. This idea of an “accidental nuclear war” is both scary and possible.

While I may not have been a huge fan after first watching the film, I have a higher appreciation for it after the reading and analysis. The technical work behind the film was great. I could really appreciate the use of angles, lighting, and dramatic effects throughout the piece. What are your reactions to the film? I’m really interested to get other feedback on each of the characters and how they contributed to the film.

The Atomic Monster

When I first heard that we would be watching Godzilla I thought to myself “what does this have to do with the cold war?” After watching the film and reading the material, the symbolism could not be more obvious. Once I got past the cheesy narration in the American remake, I saw the monster as a direct symbol of the bomb itself and perhaps a symbol of the American government as well. Here is this huge terrorist monster destroying the cities of Japan, much like the American government did with the atomic bomb.


One concept that I epically want to bring up is the idea of Godzilla having the capacity to symbolize many different aspects of the cold war. Could the monster alternate identities? One identity of the monster is that of the atomic bomb, while another could be said to be our government. What I’m wondering is if this movie and the monster itself could stand for war in general. A being manifested by chemicals and underground testing, terrorizing the world, destroying cities, and only destroyed through more chemicals and bombs. When thinking about the wars going on all over the world, couldn’t it be said that one of the parties could be playing the “Godzilla role”? May be I’m going way of tangent, but this film just made me think of the other possibilities this monster could represent for our society and the world in general. What are your thoughts?

I also found the differences between the original Japanese film and the American remake to be quite laughable. After watching the original, I almost felt like the American adaptation was mocking what the Japanese film makers were trying to portray. The addition of American dubbed accents and the removal of other key scenes seemed to me like a way to make the film more “American friendly”. The reading explained “the united states release of Godzilla shows two approaches to the radioactive monster (projection and transference) in high-relief… Included in the cuts were direct references to Hiroshima”. I’m wondering what the reason for the cuts were. Did they simply not want the American people to here direct references to the destruction in Japan? If that’s the case, then why even remake the movie when the film itself is a huge symbol for the atomic bomb and its destruction? Why do you think the film chose to cut out these scenes, but to still remake and release the film?

Overall, I really loved the general idea of the film. While the acting might not have been up to par, the idea of this monster being generated and destroyed by our atomic decisions seems quite poetic and very relevant to the cold war. Additionally, the reading helped to reinforce my feelings about what the monster symbolized, in addition to giving an insight into other monster films during that era and the motive behind them. I’m really interested in hearing your thoughts and opinions of the film and whether or not you feel like general views would see it as entertainment or a symbolic representation of the effects of war.

A cup of jo from the Atomic Cafe

I’m already so excited for this class based on the first movie and reading! The documentary “Atomic Café” was a film rich with information about the era of the atomic bomb. As a film major I loved the style of the film, and the film maker’s ability to narrate through images and clips alone. I absolutely loved the films use of contradicting statements and real clips of the atomic bomb exploding, and the effects the explosions had on the people and society as a whole.


My mom was born in 1950, and I remember her telling me about the bomb scare and having to practice “duck and cover” while in school. When we were watching the film, the clips and images made the whole era seem more real to me. At first I couldn’t believe that the American people were so gullible and able to believe that taking these outrageous measures to be safe from the bomb. As the film when on, and I read the reading assignment, I started to think about how I would react if that were to happen today. I would believe what the government said would keep me safe because I would have no other safety. We are all helpless in eyes of war, but having some hope of safety is what kept everyone going.

Another aspect of both the film and the reading that I found to be very interesting was how upbeat and happy going everyone was suppose to be during this time. The reading talked about how the women were expected to keep the idea of normalcy, and I think that most Americans did this through making light of the situation. Watching smiling faces descend into these bomb shelters was both comical and quite sad to me. Like someone in our last discussion stated, these tactics and bomb fashions became pop culture. I believe that for many having these smiling faces and light way of looking at the war was a way to keep their own peace of mind.

I found the reading to be a great support to the film. I especially found the explanation of the underground school to be particularly amusing. I can’t imagine having these fallout shelters around us today. When I think about the era of the bomb scare, it almost feels like it was a whole different world then. While it may have seemed that way, it really isn’t that much different than our lives today. There is still the threat of war, still the possibility that we could be bombed at any moment, but we live our lives anyways. I think it was really important to watch this film and to read the text provided, not only to show us how things were, but to remind us we are the same as we were then, subject to the protection and trust of our government. I am really looking forward to the other films and reading, not only to learn about our past, but to understand our present.