Presentation script

Speaker: the anti hero. as rick Altman in Film/genre  said that the definition is someone who "bucks authority" (item 4) and no one portrays this idea better than the Legend Clint Eastwood. now Eastwood has exclusively portrayed the anti hero and in fact has almost set the standard for today's hero. by the way, spoilers ahead....just saying. starting with one of his most famous scenes films "Dirty Harry" (source 1) in which Eastwood portrays a San Francisco cop searching for an Insane killer and it starts to show his way down a dark path which almost points towards Callahan being as bad a character as the movies villain.

Scene: The bank robbery scene (00:11:00-00:15:00)(item 1)

Speaker: you can see from this scene that Callahan opens fire in the middle of a crowded street to stop bank robbers in the middle of the day rather than wait for back up, which he was perfectly happy to do until the gun is fired, and then when asked if he has run out of bullets he points his gun at the unarmed injured criminal and pulls the trigger, whether he knows if the gun was loaded or not he would have happily out right murdered the criminal without a second thought and while you may believe that the criminal deserved to be killed as he is a criminal however he is often reprimanded throughout the film for not following correct procedure.

Scene: the jumper scene (00:30:50-00:33:03)(Item 1)

Speaker:  Now this scene shows Harry to stop a potential suicide not by talking him down but by telling him about the "mess it would make on the sidewalk and how bad it would make him look in front of his captain" and then when the jumper attempts to fall Callahan knocks him out and simply carries him down to the ground. now even though this entire scene is literally showing harry tot be doing a good thing, that is saving a life, he literally assaults the guy  which is obviously a bad way to do it as the guy can literally seen to be hanging from the lift on the way dow which is not safe as the guy could have fell at any point anyway and so he does bad to achieve his goals and that perhaps the anti hero view, doing good with the guise of bad.

Scene: Football stadium Scene (01:08:30-01:10:24)(item 1)

Speaker: Callahan shoots a suspect in the leg before promptly torturing him for information on the location of a kidnap victim which for obvious reasons is very far from the actions of a hero however his intentions are good in that the victim is slowly suffocating and he needs to find her. The criminals screams can obviously be heard for a long time while the shot slowly zooms out. now this really has some moments that obviously are bad while also being semi good, for instance Callahan shoots the guy in the leg even after he has stopped due to Callahan's previous shouted order and the suspect is completely un armed which Callahan can obviously see which means that knowing that that the suspect is surrendering and that he is unarmed harry still shoots him, granted its in the leg which isn't as bas as killing the guy straight up however Callahan did need something from him namely the dying girl which begs the question, Would Callahan have straight off killed the suspect if he hadn't have been looking to save the girl?

Scene: Final showdown scene (01:38:40-01:41:31)(item 1)

Speaker: Finally Callahan fires at the main villain while he's holding a young child as a human child and the bullet hits the criminal only a few centimeters from where the child's head is.
all of this points towards the general attitude of this supposed hero that constantly breaks or bends the rules in order to get his job done and even goes as far as to symbolically throws away his detective badge at the end of the film which implies that he has given up on the law being the way to stop the criminal element and instead he needs to take it personal.

documentary: Dirty Harrys way (item 8)

Speaker: this documentary touches on a couple of the used scenes and leaves some impressive quotes that could add to the ideas of the character such as the robbery scene it is said that Callahan "scarcely has to interrupt his lunch to gun down a trio of thugs" (item 8)which implies to me that its trying to show that Callahan barely thinks anything more of killing three people is something he doesn't care about however it also shows a new side to the final scene when Callahan shoots the suspect while he's holding a child however this documentary points out that he hesitates rather that straight up shooting and this show that he is wrestling with the decision that he later follows through with the plan to shoot the suspect and this is perhaps a way of showing that Callahan does have a good side as he doesn't risk the child as much as he could have done but instead lowers his gun so that the suspect (with a gun to the childs head) does lower his guard which means the child is in less danger yet still a concern and so harry then takes down the suspect at a risk to the child which to me does lean closer to hero as he ceases to lose his "personal approach" (item 8) and begins to worry about innocent victims, which could be overlapped with the torture scene as he also does something along these lines when he tortures the suspect about the girl as he takes a second of thought time  which means he's trying to think of a way to get the information out of the suspect and settles on the torture method as its quicker and more effective than any other method and time is of the essence and so it does show heavily that Callahan is a hero whose concerned with the lives of the citizens he is trying to protect however he has very little empathy for criminals and will gladly sink to  heir level to rid the city of them, which, as this documentary says, kind of like Callahan with the old gangster cops who would "keep the law with a machine gun"(item 8)

Speaker: in support of this is one of Eastwood's earlier films that he literally plays the Good as in "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" (source 2)
while this film doesn't have as much of a focus on the anti hero character however Eastwood portrayal of Blondie/The Man With No Name as the titular Good is far from that. this film again having its moments that again show Eastwood's character to be far from good as he frequently is shown to do several things that indicate that his character has never been good but instead is classed as the good when compared to the rest of the titular characters as he  is seen to take criminals which have been convicted of "arson, murder and rape" turning them in for the bounty money on them and then rescuing them so that he can turn them in again for the money somewhere else and this is implied that he lets them go every so often so that they can commit more crimes as between the first and second time we see him do this the list of crimes that is read out for Tuco "The Ugly" has almost doubled in size and so this the hero of this film starts to seem like a bad guy as much as a good guy as he literally seems more like a mercenary who does what he does for the money ands own personal advancement which isn't really a trait of a good guy.

however he does maintain the good guy status as he acts in many sections to save a lot of lives such as when he blows up a bridge so that he can save thousands of lives in the american civil war, however this too could have negative effects as the captain in this scene states that "its a court martial offence to even dream of destroying that bridge" (item 2) and so its safe to assume that that stands for the south side as well which further means that when the soldiers return they could all face a court martial and potentially face death anyway and so its again potentially only for the gain of him. flipping it again it also grants a dying mans last dream so it could be another sign of goodness in him.

also theres an emotional scene where he comforts a dying soldier in his final moments and even being the one to murder the sadistic Angel Eyes "The Bad" however this too is marred by the fact that Blondie has removed the bullets from Tucos gun which could have got him killed especially when you consider that there was a 50/50 chance between angel eyes shooting him or blondie. this is backed up by Seeing Is Believing by Peter Biskind (item 5) which sates that Eastwood's characters "showed audiences that you could shoot first or shoot someone in the back and still be the hero" and this does happen in that final duel as well as a couple of other moments in the film where he shoots first such as when Angel eyes's goons turned up and Blondie simply shoots one of them before even opening his eyes and when Angel eyes summons them out of hiding Blondie doesn't even seemed surprised which to me heavily implies that he knew exactly who the mender and why they were there and still shoots them and then later when he kills another one of them before they even can draw there own weapon and just like in Dirty Harry he takes a second to think which again makes me believe that he openly considers what to do with the technically un-armed man and to me where a hero would perhaps render the man unconscious and disarm him Blondie besides on straight up murder.

then Blondie makes him stand with a noose around his neck before riding off as if to leave him his fate before returning to shoot him down and making a joke about it, obviously this isn't the side to a hero as had literally anything gone wrong Tuco would have been hung brutally.

this does add up to make the character an anti hero however this one seems to heavily point towards the anti rather than the hero and that could in fact be true, if it wasn't for the moments of kindness or heroism this character could be seen as the villain or more likely simply a mercenary that only does good because it benefits him in some way as regularly seen in the film.

Speaker: a final film comparison of this idea is Eastwood's role as Gunny Sergeant Tom Highway in "Heartbreak Ridge"(item 3) and i found this role really plays to the idea as an anti hero as Highway is a man that is sent to train "a bunch of losers and malcontents"(Item14) during the Vietnam war which points towards the idea that Highway is the hero of the film as he is literally training these men not to be killed as all they have been used for up to the point where Highway turns up is to lose in "a distinct grotesque military manner"(item 3) to the other unit on base during training exercises and he does succeed in saving all but one of them during the final scene when they are deployed however throughout the training Highway constantly beats some of the men especially when they attempt to get rid of him during the film as well as opening fire on them during training exercises and again the bullets hit just a few feet away from the men. Also just like the Harry Callahan character he has a constant problem with authority completely insulting them to their faces as well as beating them and disobeying direct orders during one scene where the soldiers inform Highway that they are supposed to lose. the film also starts with Highway in a jail cell which obviously implies heavily that he's used to being in a cell due to his relaxed look however he also looks to be a tough respected character as he's the centre of attention to all but one of the inmates and to me this implies that he's again so used to this that he simply starts telling stories and even smoking a cigar, beating another man which obviously a good guy wouldn't do straight up, and then finally being told that he has a long list of minor felonies including "urinating on a police vehicle"(item 3)

Speaker: these roles show Eastwood's base line for every movie he does in some way in that all have their bad sides as each character has their down sides whether it be disregard for authority or a disregard for human life .

City of God

what is the importance of mine-en-scene and/or sound increasing meaning and generating response in the films you have studied?

during the final scene of city of god we witness the death of lil Ze, the short build up to this moment has several moments of mine en scene that added weight to the sequence for me. For instance as melon head and the police lead lil Ze to the final moment we are shown a low key mid shot of lil Ze getting escorted with a concrete mesh behind him and this to me pointed out the darkness and the trapped sense that will follow as if to say that the moment of death is coming and there is now ay out of this and that perhaps mirrors the entire film in itself as throughout we are constantly shown that it is impossible to escape the city of god in one piece, we saw this in shaggy who was shot as they attempted to escape as well as goose and even benny. another moment that stood out during this scene was that everything from rockets Point of View was from behind this concrete cage as it were and this said to me that rocket was out, like he wasn't a part of the animals in the "zoo" who tear each other apart for scraps in that Lil Ze's business is literally scraps, he was just an innocent person looking into a cage. this idea as stated is shown when shaggy attempts to escape the city of god and is gunned down by the corrupt cops and as we watch his attempted escape through the log shot from within the car that watches shaggy weave in and out of the buildings before inevitably dying and it adds to the sense that another "innocent" person has to watch the guilty "animals" go through everything and then die however this perhaps in itself has a flip in that we see Denise "trapped" inside the car and so it could be saying that she's actually trapped in leaving the city because shell inevitably be dragged back into it and she actually is as later we see her with one of the drug lords that Lil Ze has to murder to take over.this then again is flipped on its head for goose as when he dies during his escape he's killed by another "animal" and so there isn't a cage in the way except for possibly the city boundaries themselves. this possibly adds to the message of futility that people are always killed right  in the borderlands of their escape, goose on the city limits, benny on his leaving party and lil Ze to a degree as with his business almost non existent he could literally walk away but its his decision not to run that then gets him killed at the hands of the runts.

Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood exclusively portrays anti heroes?
films
item 1-
Dirty Harry (1971)-
 I chose this as my focus film as it uses several scenes where Eastwoods character does the right thing however he often does it a way that could perceive him as the antagonist in some modern films. Where his fellow officers follow the rules he breaks them to get the job done, including risking a Childs life. This perhaps is shown to be Eastwood's exclusive role as it doesn't change throughout the film. Theres quite a few sources that suggest that this film re-vamped the cop who believes that he can get more done by working outside the confines of the law. Eastwood shows several traits that appear to be his signature to a role, these being a gruff low voice and also a lack of dialogue, "grizzled handsomeness" and the disregard for authority.



item 2-
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (1966)-
Eastwood literally plays the "good" in this however again there is several moments that almost place him closer to the bad, this again allows us to question his morals and once again there are several scenes that an audience perhaps wouldn't see from regular hero. Again there are a lot of sources that suggest that this film changed the face of the western genre to use characters who are less complete heroes and more of personal gain "anti heroes"



item 3-
Heartbreak Ridge (1986)-
Eastwood plays a drill sergeant training troops which makes his character the good as he is literally training these men to survive. He openly beats and insults his troops (including firing at them with a live weapon during training, several times) while frequently getting into trouble with command and the police.



books
item 4-
Film/Genre pg 148-9(rick altman)-
 This goes into a little detail about how "heroes" traditionally have become rule breakers by way of becoming good such as the detective breaking the law to catch someone which is perfectly within the idea of dirty harry. "buck authority" which could perfectly describe Eastwood's typical character role.



item 5-Seeing Is Believing-Peter Biskind Pg 342
This book contains a very useful paragraph that explains how Eastwood showed audiences that you could shoot first or shoot someone in the back and these qualities are shown in the chosen films and so the information would be useful for providing yet more to the argument.



item 6-
Clint Eastwood the American Rebel(Marc elliot)-
This book goes into in depth detail about clint Eastwood and his life which lead up to his roles, each role has a small explanation into each role that he has portrayed and also his influences which could explain the roles.



documentaries
item 7-
Inside the Actors Studio (2003)-
This Tv interview goes into a lot of detail about all of eastwards career and goes into detail about each role he has portrayed and why, also has some points that could be used in arguments for and against his work.



item 8-
Dirty Harry's Way-
a short documentary that uses dirty harry in comparison to the old gangster anti heroes who would gun down suspects and bad guys without a second thought and then compares to Eastwood's portrayal of Harry.



articles
item 9-
Relevant Magazine-the rise of the anti hero-goes into detail about the anti hero and the premise while naming two of the films used during the presentation. this will be useful because it shows clear agreement with the point made in the presentation.



item 10-
Empire Magazine, all used film reviews-
a useful but small review that contains a useful quote that while small will add to the argument if needed. goes into some small detail about the actions of each of his characters and how they could be considered anti heroes.



item 11-
Anti heroes: is there a goodness of purpose-Brian A Kinnaird
a Web article goes into detail about the anti hero and specifically references dirty harry during the explanations and uses it to reference the common idea of the anti hero. includes a lot of detail into Dirty Harry which is the focus film for this presentation.



item 12-
A Film History Magazine"Clint Eastwood, Americas Anti Hero" by Justin Aylward
in depth detail into Clint Eastwood's role as the typical anti hero and specifically names two of the used films in its article as well as providing some extremely useful quotes and adds a lot to the argument as article does cover it as well



item 13-
The New York times
The New York times offers up several reviews of the chosen films and offers arguments towards the chosen question and the anti hero nature of Clint Eastwood's characters and also provides some negative or deterring comments that could go towards making another side to an argument.


item 14-
the Washington post-Heartbreak Ridge
goes into a lot of detail about one of the chosen films and contains a lot of quotable lines that would be useful when creating a presentation script and also offers an oppositional opinion that could be used to create an argument.



rejected sources
clint eastwood wikipedia- while this would be a valuable source it doesn't go into much detail about specific parts required. also each part that are useful have been covered in greater detail in some of th other sources and so it would be simply repeating the same information.


Gran Torino-while this film does match the desired idea about Eastwood's Anti hero status however i feel that i know more about the chosen films and that each one complements the others or doesn't offer enough separation from the other source films


http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/clint-eastwood/27287/clint-eastwood-don-siegel-and-the-great-anti-hero- this source does contain some information about the focus film its simple information about the plot that has already been stated in other sources however the other details of the source cover separate movie to the chosen source film

Mel Brooks

Does the use of "spoofing" make Mel Brooks an auteur?

item 1-
Spaceballs-I chose this as my focus film because it "spoofs" almost every scene from the original star wars trilogy and to me does show the ideas that Mel brooks spoofs such as his Jewish heritage, sci-fi(even having one scene where john hurt recreates his scene from "Alien" where the chest burster appears) and so will display that he is an auteur
item 2-
Blazing saddles- this film pulls a lot on the ideas of the western and the opinions of a small town towards a lot of things, especially blacks (which even today is serious to the point where Quentin tarantinos "Django unchained" has similar ideals) and even has several fourth wall breakages.
item 3-
Dracula: dead and loving it- once again this film takes a pre exiting story and "spoofs" it with comical tones to a fairly dark and serious story about murder and the supernatural. i find this useful as it backs up the blazing saddles approach that i need for the question.
item 4-




















item X-
Alien chest burster-scene will be used in comparison to the spaceballs scene to show the idea of the spoof and how brooks changed it to add to the comical feel of the film.
item Y-
Bram stokers Dracula-as stated Item 3 is a spoof of the Dracula story and so some comparisons may be made or shown depending on the needs of the presentation.

http://www.melbrooks.com- reminder

La Haine Question

What is the importance of mise-en-scene and/or sound in creating meaning and generating response in the films you have studied?

each scene of "La Haine"  has several meanings that the mies-en-scene or sound. the final scene that sees one or two of our characters removed (Hubert's fate like several moments in the film are completely unexplained) and during this scene we see a large portrait painting of Charles Baudelaire who once said "The world only goes round by misunderstanding" and this scene, to me is a direct result of several misunderstandings throughout the film that brings our characters (Vinz, Said and hubert) to this point where the police have them against the car. the gun goes off by mistake and once again a misunderstanding leads to the final stand off between hubert and the cop that killed vinz, and more importantly it all takes place underneath this painting and from the shot behind Hubert shows that the whole scene is contained in a little area which says to me that the whole idea is being proved almost scientifically right in front of Baudelaire who looks down on them from above. and this idea perhaps extends out towards the entire film as one of the first shots is of the same portrait and one of the last ones is and so this is perhaps saying that the final scene has been destined from the start as most of the happenstances during the film are just misunderstandings.

another scene that uses miss-en-scene to printout more meaning to a scene is when Vinz daydreams about shooting the traffic officer. both sides are shown to have a higher meaning as behind vinz there is a light ring which almost forms a halo above his head showing that he is possibly in the right however the ring is fractured and tome that seems to say that maybe this is the right thing to do but its not ever going to be the 100% right thing. on the cops side a window behind them has a massive cross on it which comes before an empty and desolate store which again to me seems to point out that the cops are in the wrong for the death of Abdul and so need to be removed or punished however when vinz does dream shoot one of them he flies back (something which is a major cliche in american movies) into the cross and window shattering both which seems to be that the illusion has been broken, the police themselves are not to blame as a whole and instead its just the actions of one man and so by killing this possibly innocent man isn't the right thing and so with the smashing of the glass von snaps out of it and then when hubert gets annoyed within for thinking about it and begins to yell and complain vinz isn't as quick to mouth off and defend himself instead looking as if he has just snapped out of a stupor.