Review - Barbarella (1968)

Barbarella is a 1968 science-fiction adventure film based in the far future. Based on the comic book of the same name, it is a fun film where if Innocent Barbarella isn’t encountering danger, she’s “making love” to one of the male cast.

Considering I’ve watched this film post the 1970’s era. Right off the bat I notice that the film is heavily influenced by the ‘love’ cultural movement of the late 60’s - early 70’s, Barbarella also tends to change her clothes, a lot. It is also worth noting that this film was released in the same year as 2001: A Space Odyssey, a landmark in the science-fiction film subgenre.

The plot of Barbarella is based within the year 40000; Planet Earth is in a state of universal peace. When a noted scientist, Durand Durand is kidnapped, the President of Earth, and Rotating Premier of the Sun System calls upon Barbarella in order to save him.

After arriving on the planet, she encounters various unusual people; the Catchman, who introduces her to the traditional ways of ‘Making Love’. Pygar, a blind Angel. Durand Durand, the scientist Barbarella was trying to save, who unfortunately turns out to be the concierge to The Great Tyrant, an excellent pianist and also someone who tries to take over the universe. The film also contains some interesting environments, in particular the Mathmos which is a liquid form of evil feeding off the population’s evil.

The mood of the film is fun, somewhat campy and never takes itself seriously. The Edinburgh University’s Film Society actually puts it quite perfectly, ‘It's not a film that tries to break barriers or provide deep and meaningful commentary on the nature and meaning of life - it's a film which sets out to entertain and does so with considerable panache.’ It’s based within a tongue in cheek manner, particularly scenes in which Barbarella “makes love” to the number of males she encounters on the planet. Barbarella turns from an innocent woman into craving sexual pleasure after encountering The Catchman. To a point in which she is left disappointed after breaking the villain’s torture device, an organ that is meant to deliver fatal doses of sexual pleasure.

One of the most notable aspects of the film is its colours, after watching films from the 1930’s and 1920’s, as well as modern films today, Barbarella stands as a harsh contrast of Older and Present day films. From the environment to the costumes, everything is brightly coloured and caters to circular patterns and shapes within its environment; to the architecture of SoGo, to the design of Barbarella’s spaceship.

The costumes are inspired by the times fashion. The BBC’s Film review of Barbarella states ‘But these are only snatches of a nutty film that boasts at times beautiful photography of some cheap but truly epic sets of PVC and everything that clings.’ The clothing that the cast wears caters towards bright colours with sparing use of contrasting black and white. Particularly evident in Barbarella at one point wearing white and The Great Tyrant covered in black.

It’s evident that the films influence is heavily drawn from the era its made, Empire Magazine’s review of the film puts it as Barbarella ‘wears (and unwears) a succession of truly amazing fashion creations with all the confidence of a generation that thought sex was, above all, fun.’ From costumes lined with fur, to garments that draw focus heavily onto her breasts. This is noticeable not only with Barbarella but the entire cast. The Great Tyrant also wears clothing that reveals cleavage and her belly button, and most of the male cast have no sleeves. Notably, the angel Pygar plays the main character’s love interest, and is cast with a man who throughout the film only has a torn rag to cover his lower body.

Review - King Kong (1933)

King Kong is a 1933 adventure film, where the plot of a struggling movie director is overshadowed by the main antagonist, a giant Gorilla.

After seeing Peter Jackson’s re-make of this classic film back in 2005, my expectations of the classic were somewhat low, due to the 1930’s lack of cgi in a heavy cgi-based film compared to today. However, after watching the film I believed it was even better than the remake due to its memorable characters and cinematic environment.

The film creates a contrast between character and plot; I believe the character of Kong, or the chemistry between Kong and Ann is so strong that it outdoes the plotline in terms of the audiences’ interest.

The plot’s starting attention seems to be on its dialogue, which creates this slow-pace reminiscent of films during its era, at least until the arrival of Kong. The film’s plot focuses on a belligerent director, Carl Denham, struggling to find a leading-lady in order to finish his film. Finding Ann Darrow, a poor lower-class woman, they set off with a crew to Skull Island, a mysterious area that is not widely known or written on maps. A majority of the island is blocked off by a wall, and protected by a tribe trying to keep something in. After the crew arrives at the island, they are confronted by the tribe, that same night a few tribesmen come on board and steal Ann off the ship without raising a signal, and spare no time in giving Ann as a sacrifice to Kong. The most critical point within the plot is when Kong arrives. The pace is sped up focusing more on the action in the jungle over its story.

Kong is a ferocious animal with a kind heart; Empire Online’s review of King Kong puts the character of Kong perfectly, “The focusing on Kong's feelings for Ann gives the spectacle backbone, making it far more satisfying than busy updates like Jurassic Park” His fascination for Ann Darrow is what truly draws the audience in. the two characters create a chemistry very alike to beauty and the beast. It is unfortunate that it’s Kong’s fascination or obsession for Ann that leads him to his demise.

One of the most impressive aspects of the film I believed was the use of environment within the jungle, especially within the textures of the set. Despite the film being in entirely black and white, elements such as rocks or trees are easily distinguishable due to the texture. It enhances to the level of detail as well as improves upon the atmosphere that the audience is feeling, especially in parts such as when Kong rocks some of the crew off a tree trunk to their demise below, or when Kong fights a Tyrannosaurus Rex. In fact it’s worth mentioning this scene due to the environment not only being in the background but also the foreground, as trees and vines are viewable within the scene, closer to the audience than the characters.

The characters of Kong and Ann arise to become the main focus of the storyline as the plot advances; Time’s Review of King Kong says “It might seem that any creature answering the description of Kong would be despicable and terrifying. Such is not the case. Kong is an exaggeration ad absurdum, too vast to be plausible. This makes his actions wholly enjoyable.” The case of creating a character like Kong shows the audience something that creates a variety of emotions, feared as the audience first sees him, enjoyed due to his exploitations in the jungle, and yet somewhat sympathetic due to his fascination with Ann. I believe the audience is even able to associate with so humanely towards the character just before the end due to his actions based on his emotions on Ann.

The Empire state building scene is not only iconic, but it helps to create a clash between plotline and character. Film 4’s Review of King Kong states “The climax with Kong and Wray at the top of the Empire State Building is an eloquent summation of the film's themes of doomed romance and the violent clash between the primitive and the modern” (Fay Wray is the actress who plays Ann). Again it’s sympathetic in the audiences’ perspective, as we see Kong’s obsession.

Review - Metropolis (1927)

Wow.


...What a film.

I don't really consider myself to be a film buff but holy mother of all that is good and pure, that was a pretty decent film considering it was made 80-ish years ago. I want that soundtrack.

...and the t-shirt..

...and maybe a small Bobblehead of The Machine Man.



Metropolis is a 1920’s science fiction film; underlining the message that "There can be no understanding between the hands and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator" In a nutshell, the film promotes the importance of compassion, working together, and the brutality of capitalism. As well as to not trust a scientist whose woman you stole. Watch this. Watch this now.

The plot of the film is based within the future, in which humans are living in a dystopian society. The population is divided quite sharply into two classes; the thinkers, and the workers. The relationship between the two is very delicate, so much so that a single woman is able to influence the entire working class into rebelling and therefore destroying the entire society. Well done.

The thinking class is led by a domineering Joh Fredersen, who founded, built and runs Metropolis. The division of classes can be simply defined by their living conditions. The thinking class lives above the world in tall skyscrapers with transportation in forms of planes, cars, and public transportation. Whilst the working class lives beneath the earth, in dull housing apartments with no motorised transportation to get around. The only way to get above is by cargo elevator.

The working class is motived by a woman named Maria, who prophesies the coming of a mediator, or saviour, to join together the thinkers and the workers. Considering the devastatingly low morale of the workers that the audience sees in the first scenes of the film, I’d believe it’s justified to think that the entire working class population is clamouring on desperately to Maria’s preaching.
The mediator of this film is Freder, Joh Fredersen's son. Freder falls in love with Maria, who the audience sees as a woman of the working class; represented by her attire. Slant magazine’s review of Metropolis describes it as down to ‘His innate sense of goodness is a direct reflection of the boundless opulence of his father's city and more than likely why the film confirms his staunch belief that he and not Maria is the city's savior’ Freder is fundamentally a good person, his will to unite both classes is somewhat spiritual or Christian in human nature.

I think the message of “There can be no understanding between the hands and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator” becomes clearer as the audience learns towards the end. The thinkers are shown as the people who live above the grounds, who have visions, yet does not do the work. However, the workers achieve goals, even if they do not have the vision.

The film contains elements resembling the Tower of Babel- if you didn't read the book of genesis, one of the scenes in the film gives a brief summary of what happened. Including the story of the Tower of Babel within the film is an interesting move from the writers; essentially the scene, along with Maria’s prophet-like character, adds a component of spiritual proportions. The Independent film review of Metropolis puts it eloquently stating ‘The addition of biblical references brings the spiritual-vs-science battle to the forefront’As Metropolis can be interpreted as a modern day Tower of Babel, driven by science. Furthermore, the inclusion of the story of the Tower of Babel helps the audience to understand the current conscientiousness of the two sides, as well as help justify what are going through the workers minds when they rebel in the later part of the film.





The camera angles of the film are somewhat unusual by today's standards. It lays emphasis on a certain artistic quality, this ranges from the Mise-en-scène, to key elements such as the score. I noticed one particular camera angle that I truly wish would be used more in modern cinema- First-person angles. (It is worth noting that the last film I’ve seen which used that angle was Doom (2005). It’s a shame because it wasn’t due to creative thought like Metropolis; rather they used that particular angle in only one scene as paying homage to the first-person shooter the film is based on). The first person angles in Metropolis are used sparingly but add to great effect, such as highlighting a key area or a point of significance within the scene.
Small details within the film add to dramatic effect, such as the use of film being sped up. This is used frequently in scenes where there is a lot of chasing or running, such as when Freder is running around the city trying to find Maria.





The BBC Film review adds 'Narrative logic takes a backseat to rampant expressionism - with sense less important than ideas and startling visuals.' This is especially true when coupled with the films dramatic scenes. The actors compliment some parts of the film through their talent of emphasising drama as a result from their body language.

I believe the most significant part of the film is the score; there are different versions of the film with different scores, so it’s worth mentioning that I watched the restored version. Despite being a ‘silent film’ the use of music adds another layer of drama to scenes; this was strongly evident in how the scene cuts from Joh Fredersen, to the workers. As the scene changes, the change of music from an upsetting tone to a somewhat revolutionary tone is abrupt and incredibly powerful. The audience is somewhat able to feel the roar of the workers rebellion within the music. To me, despite its creative brilliance, tones of science fiction, dystopian views and minor romantic quality, it’s the score that takes this film from great to incredible.

Review- The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

Regarded by many film buffs as the first true horror film, moreover the first film that created a twist ending, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a 1920’s black & white silent film. If you have the time and can tolerate slow films, I would fully recommend it.

Although for me, if it wasn’t for my peaked interest in the unusual mise en scène and the odd twist at the end, I may have fallen asleep watching this film.

As aforementioned the most visually striking aspect of this film is the Mise en scène, which I believe was one of the most significant and defining aspects of the film.To a regular audience, the set design would seem like an abstract twisted city or town, to an artist it would seem to be a film within an expressionistic painting.

This style is reflected within the entire architecture of the film, from the disproportionate buildings, to the crooked doors, to even the windows which frames are unequal. In harsh contrast this allows the characters, who look normal, to stand further out. This is due to the story coming from Francis’ perspective. A brief review from Netflix agrees with this in that ‘This stark expressionist film from German director Robert Wiene astonishes with the power of its sets and visuals’. This is certainly true when the audience learns later in the final plot twist; Francis happens to be a patient at a mental hospital and the ‘flashback’ Francis is having is really his own concocted fantasy. The set design reflects his ‘delusional’ mind-set and constructs a powerful abstract world.



This use of mise en scène is rarely used in modern cinema, with the only exception I can think of being Tim Burton, a review from timeout.com puts it perfectly; saying ‘Thematically it has rarely been copied, and the style only really infiltrated in dream sequences and other odd devices.’ I find it a shame that most modern cinema doesn't implement a creative style within their work, the Cabinet of Dr Caligari's artistic and unusual mise en scène adds a layer that makes a good film much more appealing/interesting.


I believe that as a compliment to the unusual set design, the lighting helps to create this incredible atmosphere within the film. As the BBC film reviewer Nick Hilditch puts it, ‘it is difficult to imagine the film done better with the benefit of sound, colour, or any innovation since.’ From a visual perspective, the audience sees that the town looks all jagged and sharp-lined with perspective lines that just feel awkward; however, the lighting helps to create an authenticity that this truly exists. This is directed through its small details, such as the glowing light of a street lamp in the foreground, to larger details such as a bright light to create a contrast with the below three characters.

I found the story hard to follow, after watching it in the lecture theatre I had to watch it again at home to fully understand it. The confusion is mainly due to its twists and turns that aren’t as linear as most modern film plots. As mentioned before, the film is told from the perspective of Francis, who the audience learns at the end is a mental hospital patient. At first the film draws the audience into believing the plot that Dr. Caligari and Cesare are the main antagonists of the film. However, towards the end the audience is hit by the final plot twist. I believe it was quite a strong twist to the story, as the audience authentically believed in these characters. For the characters to be quite the opposite of what the audience had originally perceived, and putting in this plot twist towards the end takes some time to fully comprehend.