Rear Window (1954)

Generally it's understood that the reason for having a "Main Character" in a film is to provide for the audience a window, as it were, into a story. 

In this case L.B. Jeffries fills this role literally; throughout the film everything that we see in the film is shot inside his apartment, or looking out his window - the only time this rule is broken is when Jeffries actually falls out his window.

What I actually find most interesting about this film though, is that oh-so-familiar dynamic of the main character's efforts being challenged by the antagonist: Lars Thorwald. I say it's familiar, but in this case the "Main Character" has a broken leg and is trapped in his apartment, and the "Antagonist" doesn't even know Jeffries is there!
    Looking at it like that I thought "That just doesn't make sense - the other characters are questioning Jeffries all  the time, surely one of them would better fill the role of antagonist..."


Lt.Thomas J. Doyle 

Doyle is an obvious choice, after all he tells Jeff he's wrong to his face, and insists that he stop, how much more challenging can you get?

Doyle: "Lars Thorwald... is no more a murderer than I am." 

Jeff: "You mean that you can explain everything strange that has been going on over there, and is still going on?" 

Doyle: "No, and neither can you. . ."

However, despite disagreeing with Jeff's conclusion, Doyle spends most of his time actually helping him; he looks into all aspects of the case, interviews potential witnesses, all the while mentioning how he really shouldn't be getting so involved without any actual evidence.
  It is also established that Jeff and Doyle are old army buddies, this cements their bond of friendship; Doyle is a good friend and thoroughly invested in helping Jeff realize the truth (that is, the truth the evidence leads to).

Doyle: "Get that idea out of your head. It will only lead you in the wrong direction." 

Nurse Stella

Stella is openly critical of Jeff right from the start, but it's more of a motherly, voice of reason type criticism; like his conscience. She obviously thinks well of Jeff and encourages him to make sensible decisions, and to consider other peoples feelings . . . she's also a bit of a busybody and ultimately takes very little convincing to believe that Thorwald is guilty.

Lisa Fremont

Lisa is a stalwart supporter of Jeff's position, even to a fault. She is faithful to Jeff in every way, even when he awkwardly reasons that their lifestyles are incompatible, she doesn't want to argue about it and agrees with him (albeit unhappily). When Jeff tells her about Thorwald she offers a token amount of disbelief, but once it becomes clear that this is something Jeff really believes in, she's completely on board.


So we're back to Thorwald.


Despite all of these characters providing different perspectives for Jeff to consider, the one confounding factor that keeps Jeff from proving his theory, is Thorwald's behavior. As long as Thorwald keeps acting normal, Jeff can never prove that he's guilty - this is the focus of everyone's deliberation. This passive resistance is so effective, that Jeff reaches a point of doubt - he's been running on 'belief' alone, and without any evidence, and with Thorwald continuing to create his own alibi, Jeff is left with a difficult choice . . . 

but with the killing of the dog, Jeff's convictions are bolstered and he decides to stay the course. Now, more convinced than ever, they take desperate measures and force Thorwald to show his hand.

Without being aware of it, Thorwald was hindering Jeff's progress by acting normal - eventually when cornered he tries to bribe Jeff, and ultimately tries to physically stop him via strangulation.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

     My first impression of this story was that both Butch and Sundance shared the role of "Main Character" . . . but as I consider their individual motivations it seems to not be the case. Even though they spend pretty well the entire movie together, doing the same things, Butch is the only one we get a chance to empathize with; we see the world through his eyes.
     The opening scenes of the movie show Butch confronted with the uncomfortable reality that times are changing, he watches a bank closing up for the day and takes note of their extensive security precautions.


Butch Cassidy: "What happened to the old bank? It was beautiful. "
Guard: "People kept robbing it."


 It seems to me that the defining characteristic of Butch's behavior, is that he avoids confrontation at any cost. When challenged for leadership of his gang, Butch defuses the situation without killing Harvey. Butch and his gang are known for their (relatively) non-violent robberies, and are even demonstrably polite when robbing the train.
   
Time and again Butch has been able to solve his problems by "Avoiding" them, i.e: running away from the law, hiding out, etc. Trouble starts when a mysterious "Super Posse" begins tracking him down. This is no ordinary posse, and the message they present is loud and clear - there's no running this time.


Sheriff Ray Bledsoe: " . . . you're still nothing but two-bit outlaws on the dodge. It's over, don't you get that? Your times is over and you're gonna die bloody, and all you can do is choose where."


This time the problem is "being a robber" - His solution? as always; Avoid. Butch laments his position and longs for another life, he speculates about joining the army, leaving the country, even 'going straight' and earning an honest living.
     
This is where Sundance comes in - Sundance is the "Brawn" to Butch's "Brains", and would be much happier to shoot first and ask questions never. Robbing banks is what he knows, and he wants to keep doing it. He urges Butch to face the problem head on, stand and fight.


Sundance: ". . . I wanna fight 'em"
Butch: "they'll kill us!"
Sundance: "Maybe . . . "
Butch:  "You wanna die?!"
Sundance: "Do you?"


Butch buys time by taking Sundance and Etta to Bolivia to hide out - but Sundance pushes to start robbing banks again. When the law begins catching up with them, Butch suggests laying low and getting honest jobs - but this backfires in an ironic twist of fate as they themselves are robbed. They confront the robbers to get the money back, in a scene that feels very much like a "point of no return" for Butch - 


Butch Cassidy: "Kid, there's something I ought to tell you. I never shot anybody before."
Sundance Kid: "One hell of a time to tell me! "


This moment effectively marks Butch's final acceptance of Sundance's point of view. Butch and Sundance make their last stand as the full weight of their lives of crime finally catch up with them. Despite the dire consequences of a lifetime of robbery, the emphasis of these last moments is on Butch's personal triumph - He's overcome his inner turmoil and embraces the life he has, and his great friendship with Sundance.


Butch took this long to finally accept it, but I think his choice was foreshadowed as an inevitability much earlier on . . . after a playful romp on the bicycle with Etta, imagining a life that could have been, he tosses the bicycle aside - knowing full well that there's no chance for that life now.


Butch Cassidy: "The future's all yours, you lousy bicycle."




  

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Well that was wierd . . . I forgot how unnerving this film is. 

The last time I saw this movie must have been almost 15 years ago - what I find interesting is that in that time, I'd forgotten almost everything about the movie, except for the 3rd section concerning HAL and Dave. Not so coincidentally, this the only part of the movie that feels like a typical "Story" - albeit a simple one.

HAL 9000 and Dr.David Bowman

Problems on "Discovery One" begin with HAL malfunctioning, both Dave and HAL believe the other should be deactivated. HAL attributes all problems to 'Human Error' and tries to save the mission by killing all the humans. Dave survives and manages to deactivate HAL.

Despite containing only the most basic elements of story structure, this conflict with HAL addresses the critical themes of the movie: Human Error and the Advancement of Technology

These themes are thoroughly introduced in the first 2 sections:

The Dawn of Man and TMA-1

The beginning of the movie shows us the dawn of man, and the discovery of tools. Immediately we jump to the future and see the "end result" of inventing tools, technology has reached it's pinnacle, humans travel through space and every aspect of life and communication is controlled, and compartmentalized - even food is rationed and organized. Everything is going as planned.

At this point Humanity is in complete control, every obstacle has been addressed and overcome with the advancement of science and technology. That is, except for one . . .

Human Error

HAL represents the ultimate in human achievement, a perfect machine - it can perform any task, and is incapable of error. HAL's assessment that it's malfunction is due to human error is basically correct, humans determined its programing and are therefore responsible for any malfunction.

With HAL threatening to remove humans from the equation, it represents the final obstacle humans will face as a species. It raises a very important, and dramatic, question:

Will our advanced technology, through human error, cause our own destruction?

Dave answers the question with a resounding "No". By deactivating HAL, he demonstrates that human ingenuity will triumph, and that resolving these errors, not preventing them, is what insures progress.

Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite

In this final segment, Dave (i.e. humanity), having overcome this final obstacle, is taken on a journey through the rest of his existence, and eventually returned to a fetal state - implying that life/existence is cyclical - juxtaposed with the image of earth, we are reminded that Dave's journey represents that of humanity itself. 



 

Singin' in the Rain (1952)

My first impression is that this is just a fun, light-hearted musical, not much else to say right? Well, upon closer examination I've realized the story of  "Singin' in the Rain" is quite robust, deceptively complex and thoroughly fulfilling.

Stripped down to it's essence, what we're talking about is adapting to change - the movie industry is being revolutionized, and our main characters are forced to change with the times, or be left behind.

Interestingly,  I've found that the real driving force here is Cosmo Brown. Don Lockwood is the center of attention throughout the movie, but does very little to move the story forward. Cosmo on the other hand is something of a hero - early on it's shown that Don, despite his motto: "Dignity. Always, dignity", suffers from low self esteem, Cosmo is constantly setting him straight; cheering him up and reminding him why they're in show business in the first place:

Don: "I'm no actor. I never was. Just a bunch of dumb show. I know that now."

Cosmo: "What's the first thing an actor learns? "The show must go on!' Come rain, come shine, come snow, come sleet, the show MUST go on!"

When 'talkies' are introduced Cosmo recognizes the threat immediately:

Cosmo: "Talking pictures, that means I'm out of a job."

He's also the one who suggests the solution, to convert the film they're working on into a musical, he comes up with the idea of Kathy replacing Lina's voice, he even comes up with the entire new plot of the picture.

Appropriately, Cosmo is also the first character introduced in the film. By any reasonable definition, Cosmo Brown is the protagonist of this story.

Coming back to the main theme "Adapting to change" Don and Lina are critical, in that they demonstrate two possible outcomes to this problem.

 - Don Lockwood, with Cosmo's encouragement, overcomes his personal insecurities and rediscovers his passion as an entertainer: he embraces the change and is rewarded handsomely.
  - Lina Lamont on the other hand, spends the entire movie refusing to learn, adapt or change in any way. In the end she is so intent on bending everyone else to her desires that she resorts to blackmail; a desperate attempt to secure herself from the impending change. Ultimately, this is her undoing as she is publicly humiliated, ending her career in disgrace and ridicule.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

   Overall I think this is a well made film, I love the bizarre world that's been created; everything in it seems a bit "off". The camera work is decisive and powerful, I feel like every shot is designed to make you feel a specific degree of discomfort with what you're watching, every character seems a bit inhuman and strange, and the made-up "Pidgin" language is very effective at bringing you into this strange, alternate future-esque world.

  However, despite its merits, I still find this to be ineffective storytelling.

This film is focused entirely on one character: Alex. This makes him the main character, and as an audience, we perceive the events of the movie through him. This is a problem because we need to relate to him in some way, but within the first 10 minutes he is thoroughly established as a selfish, manipulative and irredeemably evil person.

   As a result of this, the rest of the movie is emotionally frustrating - despite him being an evil bastard, we're still told he's the main character . . . so we follow Alex around, hoping against hope that we will find something, anything about him to relate with. But there isn't anything, he has no emotions to speak of, and cares for nothing about himself and what's his. His only desires are to escape prison, in order to commit more acts of violence.

   The only point where there is any hope of caring about Alex, is when he is released and his world is turned against him - he is shunned by his parents, beaten by hobos, beaten by his 'friends' then captured and tortured by one of his past victims. This is somewhat satisfying, as the only thing we've learned about Alex thus far is that he is reprehensible and deserves to be beaten and tortured.

   But, as it turns out these events lead to him being completely absolved of his crimes - through no effort on his part; no remorse, no change of heart, no lesson learned, no attempt to compensate for his actions in any way. Even his attempted suicide, which could have had some sort of altruistic motivation, was a logical solution for the pain he himself was feeling - nothing to do with another person.

I leave you with a slightly exaggerated, but not inaccurate summary of the film:

Once upon a time . . .
there was an evil, evil boy who did many evil, evil things. The boy is arrested and goes to prison where he is bored for some time, then gets tortured a bit, and beaten up.
Then they let him go.
The End.