Movies

British director Danny Boyle is no stranger to success. His films include the cult classics such as Trainspotting and 28 Days Later. His film Shallow Grave was the most successful British film in 1995. Danny Boyles films take place in different realities and tackle with different psyches, but what his films have his common is his constant drive to draw out the humanity in these stories. Whether the film takes place in a post-apocalyptic world overrun with zombies or a junkie running from the mundane, Boyle makes us understand and recognize these film characters and make us sympathize or at least understand their motivations.

So it is with Slumdog Millionaire. The film starts by introducing us to the main character being in a jarring sequence that shows him being interrogated by the police. Hes been answering all the questions correctly and no one believes that hes done so through honest means. Here the story begins.
It begins with young Jamal Malik, and his brother Salim. The pair live in the slums with their mother, who is later killed in the Bombay riots while Jamal is only five years old. The slums are squalid and cramped, but Boyle manages to avoid making the film looking like poverty porn  the sight of poverty for povertys sake (Slum N Bling 68). The director even manages to capture a certain freedom and beauty in living in the slums by shooting a dynamic sequence that features the slum boys running from alleys to rooftops with the sunlight streaming down on them. It is in this scene that Boyle displays how the Western way of editing film such as the palette (soft yellows punctuated with mellow blues) and lighting can significantly change our perception of the slums.

After their mothers death, the brothers are plunged into survival mode as they scheme, scam and scramble their way from one day to another. What proves to be one of the films more humorous sequences at the same time provides a hard look at the reality of some of Indias poorest. Poverty in this film is portrayed as both a freedom and a limitation, as the camera both runs with the young boys and lingers on them as they shiver in abandoned shanties. Along the way they meet the third member of the party, Latika, who becomes the driving force of Jamals life.

Mainstream Bollywood films have themes that resonate within their audiences, and they include love, family conflict and corruption (Bindloss 59). These themes rise to the surface as Jamal and Malik take their own routes in handling their lot in life. While Malik proves to be the corrupted of the two, viewers do not necessarily hate him for itagain the director has impressed on us that while some decisions are indeed wrong, the film has shown us the whole breadth of what the brothers have experienced so far that we cannot necessarily fault them with what they have chosen for themselves.  Boyle brilliantly captures the reality of what it means to be part of Jamals world, and the script helps us be in the moment every step in the way, from the characters childhood until the inevitable breaking between the brothers.

Slumdog Millionaires cleverly-structure script is brought to life by a cast of actors who inhabit their roles wholly, and the transition from childhood to adulthood is achieved seamlessly and with an unrelenting sense of humanity. Each character is so unique and multi-faceted that when one actor transitions to another, there is no confusion on who the character is.

All throughout the flashbacks we learn as Jamal learns, each question answered earned through much strife and hardship. Every struggle hes been through leaves a taste in the audiences mouth that any sense of far-fetchedness is pushed aside Weve been through his life with him, and hes earned it, and we want him to win.

Boyles achievement in creating Slumdog Millionaire lies beyond the heartwarming underdog tale that we may have come to expect in movies like these Boyle does so much more by introducing us to the two versions of India that we know. There is the India in the travel brochures and there is the poverty-stricken image of India. Slumdog Millionaire marries these two images and show us the India as the Indians see it Disparate, opposite, but married and the same. There is violence, strife, abandonment, despair and abuse in Jamals childhood but there is also hope of getting out without losing your wits and even, daringly, your innocence. It speaks volumes of how Boyle and the scriptwriter Simon Beaufoy approached and handled the movies multi-faceted world and occupants with much respect and care. Jamal, Malik and Latika are all victimized but they never view themselves as downtrodden and victimized. Some images of the movie are jarring, but the other images that stay with us should be seemingly be ones of soul-crushing despair but Boyle manages to infuse a breathless kind of energy that spurs the film along. We as audiences are not allowed to feel pity for them, but we are invited to fully inhabit every moment of Jamals young life, and we feel more of a kinship for what should have been an alien world presented to us.

The true triumph of the movie is not that Jamal emerges from the quiz show as a millionaire but that he emerges from impossible odds with his humanity intact. His life leading up to the momentthe circumstances that could have easily led to his downfallbecome the thing that pulls him through. Like all good films, Slumdog Millionaire is an affirmation of our common humanity. Dont let the fairytale ending fool youthis movie is an honest, no-holds-barred look in a street urchins difficult life, but we all emerge from it feeling like winners. Its the power of cinema in its purest form.

How does time make itself felt in a shot It becomes tangible when you sense something significant, truthful, going on beyond the events on the screen when you realise, quite consciously, that what you see in the frame is not limited to its visual depiction. (Tarkovsky 1986 117)

INTRODUCTION
Andrei Tarkovsky was a filmmaker and screenwriter who left an indelible mark on the cinema and his influence has been felt across the globe. Tarkovsky was a risk-taker. He did not make films that catered to the changing tides of popular demands or fell into neatly categorized labels. His films are works of art that cause the viewer to create their own meaning. What the viewer takes away is largely personal and Tarkovsky planned it that way.

No study of Tarkovsky would be complete without mention of the conditions he was working under. His works were often banned or released in such low numbers that the public scarcely knew of them. But in time, the public at large came to know of Tarkovsky, a gifted screenwriter and renegade filmmaker whose works included themes that are relevant to all of humanity. In examining his films, we can see the experimental and startling ways he plays with human emotion and our quest for permanence and immortality.

THE THEME OF TIME IN TARKOVSKYS WORKS
Among the themes in Tarkovskys work is that of time. In his body of work, many films include time as an overarching theme. We will look at three of Tarkovskys films here Solaris (1972), The Mirror (1974) and Stalker (1979). We will examine these three films not only because they are superb examples of Tarkovskys portrayal of time on film, but also because they were made sequentially from 1972 to 1979. It is interesting to study the filmmakers evolution as a storyteller and theorist about human life.

Tarkovskys works are mainly about human beings struggling to survive in a fallen world. Each film portrays people in anguish and misery. It seems they have taken the world upon their shoulders and feel as though no one can relate to them. One person against the world at large. As darkness closes inliterally and figurativelyfor these characters, time is a cruel mocker.

Tarkovskys films are slow by American standards. Today, we expect and demand action. Audiences want fast-paced, heart-pounding scenes with loud effects and a swiftly moving plot. Tarkovsky would have none of that. He would not change his art for the sake of popularity. He takes his own sweet time delivering his message. His films are slow and methodical, lacking any real action. Large chunks of film are spent in staring at one person or object. How, then, do we feel the passage of time in a Tarkovsky film Therein lies the genius of Tarkovsky.

SOLARIS
Tarkovskys Solaris in 1972 marks a breakthrough in science fiction that would forever impact the future of the genre. Tarkovsky takes us to a world we have never seen before, yet recognize instantly. It is our inner landscape. He is playing with our minds and has somehow gotten inside to deliver his message time is irrelevant.

When Solaris begins, we have no idea what year it is. Is it 2010 1960 1980 Thats left for the viewer to decide. And Tarkovsky doesnt much care to give us any details or background. We being by being thrown into nature, a theme that Tarkovsky used in many of his films, including all three that we will discuss here. Kelvin, a psychologist, is walking out in nature when we meet him. He is pensive and heavy with anguish. We later learn that this is the eve of his flight to Solaris to check on a failing mission. But for now, Kelvin is just a man lost in time. We see him meandering, in no hurry. We are forced to wait to see who he is, where he is. Our impatient minds want to tell him to hurry. But he is in no rush to meet his destiny.

Part of the genius behind a Tarkovsky film is his use of uninterrupted time. He asks the viewer to invest close to three hours in the viewing of this film. He makes no apology for it. He does not zip past the necessary at the cost of his art. We are asked to think with the character.

As Kelvin takes his contemplative walk outside, it begins to rain. Rain and water are important themes in Tarkovsky films. Water has power. It has the power to cleanse and to divert. It is unchangeable and unstoppable. Kelvin does not run inside when it begins to rain on his thoughts. He stays outside getting drenched as the camera pans over to a half eaten apple crawling with ants, teacups still full of tea spilling over with rainwater. Has someone just been sitting here The apple has barely turned brown. We wonder how much time has passed. Have the tea-drinkers just run inside to escape the rain Who were they Tarkovsky doesnt answer. But the scene upsets Kelvin. Time has indeed passed. Is he remembering the people who sat there Was he one of them Does he know he has lost that moment forever and wish it back The apple core is such a small detail, but in Tarkovskys hands, it speaks volumes. Time is not limited to the events on the screen and what you see in the frame hints of a larger story.

In all three films, Tarkovsky plays with the theme of immortality. In Solaris, the astronauts have gone to the planet Solaris to a space station that was designed to hold 85 people. When Kelvin arrives, there is no one about. He slowly realizes that one member of the crew has committed suicide and the two others are reticent and hidden. They are not willing to let Kelvin in on their bizarre world. Soon, Kelvin will realize that time has been cruel to him. When his dead wife appears to him, somehow slipping through a locked door, he must readjust his perspective. Do people live forever Is the time he is currently experiencing reality Where does time go Does the human spirit live on forever From the moment we see Hari, his wife who committed suicide, with her haunting eyes and eerie silence, we realize that time has been suspended. We are asked to fill in the details surrounding the present we are watching Kelvin in. He is being held hostage in a capsule where time has stopped. Hari is not Hari any longeror is she Has she come back from the grave, complete with the needle mark from the fatal injection she inflicted upon herself Or is she a spector sent to haunt him and make him doubt his sanity

Time proves to be irrelevant here. We spend most of the film with Kelvin as he takes a thorough look at his conscience. We do not know how much time has passed. We do know that Kelvin spends every moment with Hari, but not entirely by choice. Hari demands to be by his side and even crashes through a steel door to get to him when he leaves the room. Does Hari exist only in the time and space that she is with Kelvin

Kelvin is pained by his conscience. He did not love Hari on earth, when he had all the time in the world to do so. He finds he loves her now, as a ghastly spirit who torments his psyche. We can see how Tarkovsky shows us the passage of time in that Kelvin is becoming more and more dishevelled. He is sweating and unkempt, so unlike the suave and polished young psychologist who first boarded the space station. But Tarkovsky doesnt flash any news of time having passedis it six months A year He lets us decide. But slowly as the almost three hours of this film, Tarkovsky drags us along on an uncomfortable ride with Kelvin. We feel his anguish and fatigue as he wrestles with time. Will he spend his life on the space station with the spector of Hari Or will he return to Earth where time is normal We are left wondering until the final scene where Kelvin makes his choice.

We find Kelvin back in nature at the close of Solaris. We are led to believe that he is back where he started, at his fathers pond and home. He is again walking in the woods there. He sees his old childhood dog running towards him. He has returned to Earth unscathed by his harrowing experience. Had Tarkovsky stopped here, we would be left to fill in our own details of what has transpired. As Kelvin peers in the window all appears as he left it. His father is puttering around inside as normal. The birds are in the cage. But suddenly, it begins to rain inside the house. The father doesnt feel a drop. Kelvin is beside himself with disbelief.

As the camera slowly pulls out from the front door of the fathers house, we realize that the house is floating on an island in the middle of the Solaris ocean. Kelvin clutches his fathers legs, sobbing. Time has ceased to exist. He cant return to what he had before. There is no going back. He is lost in a dimension that does not recognize time. So much is left unsaid with that one shot of the house as it bobs in the Solaris ocean. We know Kelvin will forever be a floater himself, a victim of the cruelty of time, unable to ground himself in reality.

Tarkovsky also plays with the concept of time in his transitions from black and white and sepia to full color. We are given no warning. And the past isnt necessarily represented by black and white as we would imagine. The past can be a full-spectrum blossom of colors. The present can be a nightmare of light and dark, shadows and corners. In Tarkovskys hands, time is irrelevant. We are simply a captive audience as he challenges us to decipher where we are in time. We conclude that it doesnt matter in the scheme of things what day or time it is. Has the entire film taken place in an afternoon or over several years Whats left out of the shot is more important often than whats in it.

While on Solaris, Kelvin and Hari experience thirty seconds of weightlessness. They float freely and grasp onto each other in a sad and loving embrace. Why does Tarkovsky include this bit of footage It shows once again that time, space, the laws of physics, its all irrelevant. We are weary travellers through life and we must find meaning somewhere, but it has no basis in the logical. We must think on a higher plane, one that we cannot touch or feel. It is purely in the mind that we create our own meaning.

One of the other crew members on board the space station, Snaut, says, We have lost our sense of the cosmic.  Tarkovsky is saying that we no longer believe in the possible. We are each living in our small boxes, prisoners of time shackled by our own self-imposed limitations. The brain stores all the potential. When Snaut tries to harness Kelvins brainwaves to make the apparitions disappear, we see that indeed, it is the brain that holds all the power. The power to transcend time, the power to store memories, the power to recreate those we have lost. Its all cerebral. Where does immortality live Is it in the memories of those we have loved in life Is it somewhere outside floating in the universe and able to reappear at will as Hari has

Hari exists outside of time. She inhabits a body that can be touched, but she is impossible to kill. When she thinks Kelvin doesnt love her, she drinks liquid oxygen. In a harrowing backwards reversal we watch her return to life from a frozen state. Her return is painful, as though she doesnt want to come back. Kelvin then realizes that he does love her and she says, You love that which you can lose, Kelvin. He cant keep this creature-version of Hari who lives outside of the laws of nature. He cant return to his normal life. He is locked  in between what was and what cant be.

Tarkovsky leaves us to work out our own mortality. Would we stay with someone we loved Would we want to return home without them Clearly, there is no choice to be made as Kelvin gets neither a life with Hari or a return to his old life. Time has control over his destiny.

THE MIRROR
Tarkovsky has once again bended time in his 1974 film, The Mirror. This film asks the viewer to suspend all they know to be real. With an eerie score by Bach, we are treated to flashbacks and scenes from a life that existed only in the protagonists mind. The boy, presumably Tarkovsky himself, is the only common thread through the sequence of this film. Time does not flow in a linear fashion and flashbacks take center stage right alongside the present day.

Tarkovsky forces us to stop once again and wait with him as he slows reality down. The doctor that meets the boys mother outside by a fence at the opening of the film asks, Did you ever wonder about plants perceiving Theyre in no hurry while we rush around. Its because we dont trust our inner natures. The doctor is never seen again in the film after he delivers his contemplative statements. We must think about what he has said, and so does the mother.

Nature is never in a rush, and Tarkovsky uses it brilliantly again in this film. Like the opening of Solaris, we find the main character outside in nature. She is pondering with a heavy heart. She, too, has suffered. The mother spends most of the film with an icy glare on her face. She is a contrast to the warm tones of nature, the grasses rustling in the breeze. She is hard and unmovedeven when the barn is burning. She simply walks to the well and has herself a drink of water. Tarkovsky puts the burning barn in the scene as a juxtaposition between the stony resolve of the mother and the sweeping charge of nature. Nature has its own plans that cannot be thwarted by the wishes of people. Once again, people walk through life in a cosmic daze, unaware that the flowers are growing around them and time is seeping out all around them.

Once again, Tarkovsky uses the metaphor of rain to convey the absolute hopelessness of the film. We see the mother many times throughout the film soaking wet. She is caught in the rain in her flimsy dress and high heels. She looks cold throughout much of the film. When she is dry, we know that time has passed. But shortly  thereafter she is we againsoaked by rain or washing her hair. Is she trying to wash away some iniquity

Tarkovsky uses the harsh contrast of indoors versus outdoors in all three of these films. Here, he shows dismal interiors with little to be glad about. The outdoors is shown both in color in lush grandeur or abysmal grey tones. We are not ready when the color switches back on nor are we prepared to have that color taken away so swiftly. Time has passed once again before our very eyes.

The mother appears several times in the film as different characters. She is both the boys mother and grandmother. In one scene, she looks in the mirror and her reflection is that of an old woman. The contrast is startling. Here, Tarkovsky once again asks us to suspend time in our minds. The mother is all at once old and young, vital and decaying. That one scene, perhaps more than any in the three films, speaks to Tarkovskys statement what you see in the frame is not limited to its visual depiction. There is so much meaning in that mute reflection, more than volumes of worlds could convey.

Again, as in Solaris, it is raining inside the house. In this film, the mother is washing her hair in a bowl, and when she lifts her head up, she stands happily in the rain inside the house. She is standing by the window and a muted light is shining on her. It is all shadows and grey-tones around her. She looks at the camera. We must decide what she is thinking.

Tarkovsky was a filmmaker who appreciated the intelligence of his audience. He does not spoon feed us the meanings of his art. He has his characters turn and blankly stare straight into the camera. The effect is almost chilling. The eyes are vacant and unblinking. Time is stopped for just that moment. We are forced to step inside the characters mind and feel their pain.

Where the characters are in time seems to be of no importance in a Tarkovsky film. Are they in Russia or space America or Siberia It really makes no difference. The flashbacks in this film give us brief hints into history in their images of war. We as viewers are forced to figure out which war and what the characters are doing there. Its not explained to us. Bombs explode, then ticker tape. Its cold, then its not. Its 1960, then its not.

Again, Tarkovsky shows us that rushing gets us nowhere. In a film like this, we want closure. We want a plot line that agrees with our limited viewpoints. We want action and drama. But, in fact, very little happens in this film that we can classify. Are we seeing a dream Is it present day Since the same actress plays many parts, we are further asked to stretch our imaginations to conclude that she is the boys memory of his mother and his grandmother.

A few brilliant moments in this film show time elapsing. One is when the condensation from a tea cup slowly evaporates, showing that an unnamed woman has been in the room but vanished. This is the only trace that she has been there. As it slowly evaporates, the boys hopes seem to evaporate with it. The other moment is when the boy throws a dud grenade and the commanding officer jumps on it to protect the lives of the boys. As we hold our breath waiting to see if it will detonate, we hear a slow heartbeat pulsing in the officers head. Rhythmic thumping as all action is stopped. Time frozen.

The boy treads water in a pond in another scene. This is a metaphor for all of humanity, buying time here on this earth. Rushing and hoping all will be well. Never really moving ahead. Times captives.
Both Solaris and The Mirror end in the same wayback out in nature. We see through a window fields and a forest. Nature swallows up the characters in her embrace. There are woods, birds, decomposing trees. We humans never really had the control over time that we thought we did. Nature is in control and pulses forward inch by inch without us.

STALKER
Had Tarkovsky ended his career with Stalker, no one could have blamed him. He outdid himself in what has now become a classic and opened new worlds in science fiction. Today we have special effects that can imitate reality, transport us to alternate worlds and dazzle the mind in their complicated likenesses of humanity. But Tarkovsky used none of that. His was a world populated by sparse landscapes and deserted fields. He didnt have to rely on smoke and mirrors to covey an otherworldly scene. He shot scenes that relied on the actors expressions, not cheap effects.

A stalker in this film is a guide to the Zone, a place where your innermost wishes come true. He is a guide to immortality, yet he cannot partake of that immortality himself. His problem is that no one wants it, as he says. He is afraid that he has used up his chances at bringing people to this miraculous Zone. But, in his leading others he discovers a richer inner life for himself.

The first line of the film is uttered by the Stalkers wife, Why did you take my watch This is very telling as the Stalker is trying to stop time and avert her and their daughter, the Monkey, from further pain and suffering. As if by removing her watch, she will not notice his absence and his breach of promise as he once again endangers himself in a trip to the Zone.

The film smacks of despair. The greys and sepia tones are so deep that it is almost hard to see the characters. They are in dark clothes against shadowy backgrounds. The shadows of their living spaces and the bar they meet in are melancholy and dismal. All hope seems to have been abandoned.

We join the Writer and Professor as they meet the Stalker for their journey to the hope of the Zone. The Writer says to the Professor as they drink before embarking, That must be very boring, searching for the truth. What he fails to notice is the irony that he himself is searching for an inner truth that has eluded him all his life. The characters are all running from themselves and their own minds hold them captive. They are stilled in time and forced to seek refuge in the Zone that promises happiness.

Once again, the film slips from black and white to color to sepia to shadows. We are never ready for it when it happens. Our brightness is pulled out from under us as we are left in the shadows. We feel the shift of time as the tones change. When they arrive at the Zone, the color instantly illuminates the screen in greens and blues. Here we are. Home at last, is the line that accompanies the change.

Tarkovsky once again places his characters out in nature. Just like in the other two films, the characters find themselves walking in fields next to trees and grasses and water. There is a great deal of water in this film. It rains, as in the other films, at points where the despair is unutterable. The rain is their only solace. The characters have to slog through water up to their necks at times. They sleep in shallow puddles with no comforts. Their clothes are damp and dank and yet, they trudge on. We can see the passage of time in the dryness of their clothes. We notice that time has passed in the stubble of their beards and the solemnity of their expressions. Its getting worse. Much worse.

As the film shows the three characters on their journey, we discover that each has come for their own reason. The Writer has come because he wants relief. He has a dismal life in that he hates writing. He wants what he thinks will bring him true freedomhappiness. The Professor  has come, we find out, to bomb the place and destroy it forever. The Stalker is on a mission to bring other people the happiness that he himself is not able to partake in.

How much time has passed How long is the journey Three days Two weeks The only clues we have are outside the shot. As Tarkovsky said of time, it becomes tangible when you sense something significant, truthful, going on behind the events on the screen. By modern standards, nothing happens on the journey. There are no car crashes, no gun fights, no blood and guts. But we have lived eons with these characters by the time we reach the Zone with them. We are all road weary. And as the Stalker says, No one goes back the way they came. The characters cant just leave. They have to press on. Their lives are no longer the same, much as Kelvins life was no longer the same once he encountered the hallucination of Hari.

The Stalker, a man with a prison record who seemingly is afraid of nothing, begins showing signs of deep apprehension. He throws scarves with nuts attached to them as they walk towards The Room they are aiming for. Are there land mines Or worse He is sweating and agitated at the thought of his charges becoming injured. He says, Things change here every minute. We have to go. The others dont take much heed of his fear. They dont know what he knows. He has seen what the Zone can do to people. The Stalker sees the Zone as alive and swiftly changing. The others just see a long walk ahead of them.

The three characters are trying to cheat time. They want immortality. They want the elusive holy grail of happiness. The Writer ends up realizing in a monologue of self-pity as they near the Zone, I wanted to change them, but its them who changed me. Now the future and the present are one. He is speaking about his readers that he writes his books for. This is yet another example of time colliding with itself. We see a change in the Writer, though its all off screen. He is now caught between the past and his uncertain future. Tarkovsky is a master at allowing the viewer to only see snippets. We only hear brief conversations, but we understand that the character has changed. Time has marched on while we werent looking.

The black dog that appears in the Zone befriends the Stalker. He ends up taking him home to live with him at the end. The dog represents all that is haunting in our own psyches. He cannot get rid of him. The dog follows him around and even takes a liking to him. The dog is the only other living being there with the three characters as they approach the Zone. He is a spector of their consciences. He appears more as they get closer to the Zone and appears not to be in any sort of hurry. Hell wait as they work through their own demons.

The Writer says to the Stalker in a fit of rage, Its like youre God Almighty yourself. And he dons a crown of thorns saying, I am not going to forgive you. These obvious references to Christ are not to be overlooked. Is the Stalker playing God with peoples lives Is he helping them become immortal And what of his mentor, Porcupine, who hung himself after reaching the Zone and getting his innermost wishes Is he deciding who lives and dies

The Stalker, upon reaching the final place outside The Room, tells the Writer and Professor to think back over their whole lives. He says, When a man thinks of the past he becomes kinder. Again, time is being reviewed, reworked. Time is changing people. It is the Writer then who admits that he will not become kinder by reviewing his past. He seems to become only more bitter.

The professor, upon almost reaching The Room says, Never do anything that cant be undone. He has travelled all this way with the intention of blowing the Zone up with a bomb. He finds what his colleagues have hidden---the rest of the bombin a room that has links to the past and present. Where there is no human living, we hear a phone ringing. It is an unwelcome interruption as it brings the modern world back into the silence of the Zone and the bliss that is waiting. The Professor calls a colleague that has wronged him, bringing his past back into the present. There is electricity in this remote shambles of a house. And then the light bulb blows. The light goes out. There was one last hope, but the present has crushed it.

On the threshold of The Room, the three wrestle with themselves and their darkest fears and desires and hopes. The Stalker tells them, This is the most important moment of your lives. This gives them pause. What before had been a ruthless hunting down of The Room, now demands contemplation. Tarkovsky has them quietly reflect in short sentences and telling facial expressions. It is dark again and stark. It begins to rain, then pour as the three sit and digest their fates. They will not go into The Room, not one of them. They have travelled through time in great danger of being discovered, yet no one can go in. The Stalker cannot go in because immortality is not allowed. He knows it will kill him as it has his mentor Porcupine. He knows that, only your innermost wishes come true here. And his wishes arent purely unselfish. The Writer has a moment of angst as he realizes he, too, has come under the auspices of being doused in happiness, but his selfish black desires wont allow him happiness either. The Professor, whose aim it was to blast the Zone out of existence, takes hold of his senses and refuses. He wants there to be one refuge of hope left for people.

As the shot pulls away from the three soaked characters, stewing in their own decisions, we see a fish swimming into a puddle of water that slowly is blackened by oil. As the black creeps in, we know that humanity will always have darkness and one person cant remove it from the Earth. The three are doomed to return to their lives. Time has not been kind to them. As the oil slick widens, we think that the film has ended, but it still has one important piece to go.

Back home, the three have returned to the dismal bar where they began their journey. The dog, the spirit of sin and the darkness in humanity, is now with them. The Stalkers wife comes in and takes him home. We know time has passed, but again, we have no idea how much. Nor does it matter, as Tarkovsky reminds us that time is irrelevant. We see the family together and know that the daughter, Monkey is not well.

The wifes powerful soliloquy at the end of the film sheds light into a dark scene. She will go on loving the Stalker, and they will still be a family. She knows its been awful, but that with the bad she has been able to experience the good as well. She says, It is better to have a bitter happiness than a grey, dull life. Time will go on with them and for them. Life has not ended at the Zone.  Although, it has rendered their child an outcast.

We see the Monkey in full color. She is draped in a golden scarf, the one colourful presence in a dingy world. The Monkey has special powers of telekinesis. She can move objects with her mind and we watch a glass move and then a vase crash to the ground. And its said that she has no legs, though we never are certain of that. She has been changed by the Zone. Stalkers children are never normal once their father has been to the Zone. As the camera pans out and away from the child we are left with the feeling that while the Stalker has returned, life will be anything but normal.

TARKOVSKYS POETRY
Tarkovsky stands in a class by himself. His films are hauntingly beautiful and especially memorable for their sparse images and lonely people. His use of poetry stands in stark contrast to the despair thats being portrayed on the screen. Not only are poems recited throughout the three films, but the use of poetic language by tormented characters is brilliant.

Tarkovsky used the poetry of his father, poet Arseny Tarkovsky in his films. One of the most brilliant uses of poetry is in Stalker. The Stalker takes a moment, while the black dog stirs in the background churning angst, to recite a bit of poetry. Reciting in a dreamlike voice, he muses
Now summer has passed, As if it had never been. It is warm in the sun. But this isnt enough. All that might have been, Like a five-cornered leaf, Fell right into my hands, But this isnt enough. Neither evil nor good, Had vanished in vain, It all burnt with white light, But this isnt enough.

Part of the awesome brilliance of Tarkovsky is his juxtaposing the lovely with the desolate, beauty with ashes. The viewer does not expect to hear eloquent poetry from this roughened Stalker who is a former convict. Nor do we expect to hear it on the threshold of entering The Room. The message is quite clear, it is not enough. The Room cannot solve all the problems of any individual. The Room will not eliminate human suffering and the need for morality. As Burton, one of the astronauts on Solaris says, Knowledge is only valid if its based on morality. These characters are about to be given the key to immortality and riches. They can ask for whatever they want. But what good is having the answers to the big questions in life if your choices are going to harm others This is the dilemma the Writer and Professor must wrestle with.

In another poem entitled First Meetings, also by his father, Tarkovsky weaves nature once again into the stark backdrop of suffering. The Mirror features this poem as a voice over heard above the din of the squalor.
We were led to who knows where.
Before us opened up, in mirage,
Towns constructed out of wonder,
Mint leaves spread themselves beneath our feet,
Birds came on the journey with us,
Fish leapt in greeting from the river,
And the sky unfurled above
While behind us all the time went fate,
A madman brandishing a razor.

It is no wonder that the mother weeps as she thinks of these lines. The thought of towns constructed out of wonder and mint leaves spread beneath their feet is enough to make even the most hardened listener dream of a better life. The contrast is startling. This mother has suffered. Where is her city of wonder complete with mint green grass

The conclusion of the poem hits us once again with the contrast. Behind us all the time went fateA madman brandishing a razor. This perfectly rounds out a discussion of who Tarkovsky was on film. He was a man who set out to illuminate suffering and the human condition to an art form. His images are cold and severe. His characters feel deeply and anguish over their lives. The settings are sparse and floating in time. The characters could be Anyman.

CONCLUSION
The universal questions humans ask themselves are magnified on screen in seamless grace in the films of Tarkovsky. These films are as essential and relevant to the human condition as they were when they came out some thirty-odd years ago. And knowing that Tarkovskys works were banned for a time makes them all the more meaningful. What were the censors trying to eliminate from public view Were they hoping people would not reflect on their own mortality Not challenge the status quo Perhaps they were seeking to wash all ideas of freedom of mind and spirit from the publics collective mind.

In our examination of the three films Solaris, The Mirror and Stalker, we have seen how Tarkovsky has treated the passage of time. His use of long, slow, dramatic shots ask the viewer to read the characters minds. What he leaves out of his shots is as important as what he chooses to include. The brilliance of a Tarkovsky film is that he has captured on film something that cannot be harnessed time. We spend two hours looking through the eyes of the director and we gain a deeper understanding of things that are unknowable. Tarkovskys contribution to Russian films and the making of movies in general is staggering. He was a maverick in a land of censorship, pushing forward tirelessly for the cause of great art.

Albert Einstein once very popularly quoted Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. Little must he have known what would be made of this comment in the movie and television industry of today.

In this paper, we are going to discuss the differences between the two very seemingly distinct genres of entertainment  Documentary films and Reality Television. Now, from the mere names, the two would give an allusion to being of more or less the same genre  a tape capturing reality as it occurs  either with the intent of documenting events for posterity or for providing entertainment on a weekly basis. However, the more one witnesses samples of each, one realizes that the two are as different as chalk and cheese.

Definitions
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences(AMPAS) defines Documentaries as Films dealing with historical, social, scientific, or economic subjects, either photographed in actual occurrence or re-enacted,  where the emphasis is more on factual content than entertainment.

They are usually films with a message, films which have something to say about either the social or political scenario of a place or a group of people including opinions of the maker who wants to influence the audience (more often than not).

Reality TV on the other hand is not defined in any universal manner. The Encarta Encyclopedia defines it as A TV show that presents real people in live, though often deliberately manufactured, situations and monitor their emotions and behavior whereas the Dictionary.com defines it as Reality TV aims to show how ordinary people behave in everyday life, or in situations, often created by the program makers, which are intended to represent everyday life. The one thing common between the two definitions is the fact that there is little fact in the Reality TV genre.

History
Almost all the initial work on film and tape can be categorized as documentaries as they did document factual events as they occurred (otherwise referred to as actuality films). However, the term in its present meaning was first used in 1926 by John Grierson to describe Robert Flahertys film on social life at the time in the village of Samoa. Since then documentary film-making has come a huge way with various political commentaries like Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl, Las Horas de Los Hornos by Octavio Getino and the very popular Fahrenheit 911 by Michael Moore.

In contrast, the very first Reality TV show status can be ascribed to the hugely popular series of Candid Camera (1948) where the producers placed a camera before unsuspecting audiences and caught their reactions to simulated environments. However, Reality TV as a lucrative television genre came about only in the new millennium with the Writers Strike in American television industry as the producers needed new shows to go on air without the help of writers (Dr. Karim, Reef, 2009). Thus was born Survivor and American Idol. Today Reality TV shows are too many to count covering various topics like adventure, sports, dating, cooking, self-improvement, makeovers, career builders and, of course, the much admired 247 version of Reality TV  Big Brother.

Distinctions
How real is reality  Fabricated Reality
The most basic difference between the two genres being discussed here would of course be how well (or otherwise) each treads the line between fact and fiction.

Documentaries, unlike normal feature films, are supposed to document real events occurring with real people in real situations. This makes it necessary for a documentary to have either one or all of the following real people as actors, interviews of these actors, real footage captured while the event is in process and, of course, sometimes also a voice over narration. They very often stick to basic facts which the film delivers without any fudging of meaning, either intentional or unintentional. Of course, there is a certain amount of scripting, a story line and some re-arranging of sequences, but as Richard Dyer McCann says, a documentary guarantees the authenticity of the result, even if not the authenticity of the materials used for it.

A Documentary also is supposed to contain all facts and no fiction, or as Pare Lorentz puts it, its a dramatized version of factual events. This, by definition, rules out any possibility of a filmmaker reputably putting together non-contextual bits of film to make it appear as a complete picture. Also, he cannot rearrange the footage shot or collected for the purpose of a documentary to imply a misinterpretation of the meaning of the content other than what has been expressly wished by the participants or the subjects.

For example, when making the documentary film The Leader, the Driver and his Wife, the director Nick Broomfield had difficulty getting hold of Eugene Terreblanche, the main subject of his film which was based on the apartheid in South Africa. So he ended up spending most of his non-filming time with the Leaders Driver and the Drivers Wife. Due to this, his insights of the people around the Leader helped him give this documentary a unique flavor with the varying stances which people took and the views which each one presented. He had a complete documentary  all opinions, no judgments.
In contrast to this, a Reality TV Show has somewhat questionable means of collecting footage, sequences rearranged until the original meanings are sometimes lost and no guarantee that the events in the show are in fact events which may have occurred in reality. This is called Frankenbiting by the producers of the Reality TV shows.

Almost all the reality shows stand testimony to this kind of production methods. The facts in all the shows are sometimes nowhere near so and the commentaries and expressions of the people featured in them are edited, often times beyond recognition.

In Reality shows, it is often a given that the situations are contrived, planned and manufactured for maximum audience impact. This situation is then acted out by people who often have predefined roles and lines to be spoken. On top of this, the show is then edited to maximize this effect and bring in an all new meaning to unimportant words. In television, it is often said, reality is created (Dollar, Steve, The Sun, 2007).

The show The Simple Life writers have confessed that the star of the show, Paris Hilton was often fed lines and made to act in certain ways to ensure that the show was engaging enough ratings (Poniewozik, James, Times Magazine, 2006).  Somewhere, just like a normal TV show, a reality show is compromised on these very lines  ratings

Sensationalism  Ratings and more Ratings
Today Reality TV is a term synonymous with sensationalism. If it is not sensational enough, it will never get the ratings which are required by the production houses and the television stations. If there are no ratings, then there is no show.

This reason has been the culprit for the near complete eradication of reality from Reality TV where, today, participants and even insiders openly claim to these shows having writers. Reality shows are scripted before shoots, dialogues are fed to the actors and sometimes, they also have a storyboard session to discuss scenes (Poniewozik, James, Times Magazine, 2006). All this for the sake of being sensational enough to drive up the ratings.

Jeff Bartsch, one of the editors of the popular reality show Blind Date, confessed to using extensive editing to make his episodes look more sensational and attracting more eyeballs, or as they put it, to make it more juicy (Poniewozik, James, Times Magazine, 2006). You can really take something black and make it white, Bartsch says. Even on the show Laguna Beach, one of the editors later admitted to enhanced editing to make a platonic friendship look like a sizzling relationship (Poniewozik, James, Times Magazine, 2006).

This practice would be an absolute no-no in the documentary filmmaking genre. The makers have to be ever sensitive to the basic criterion of a documentary  documenting of real events. In the documentary the Thin Blue Line by director Errol Morris, released in 1988, the events leading upto the conviction of Randall Adams have been documented to the best knowledge and ability of everyone involved and this helped bring about a revolutionary realization among the public, that the sentencing, may in fact, have been erroneous.

However, we should refrain from thinking that all directors and documentary filmmakers adhere to such stringent standards of filmmaking. One has to simply recall the case of Marc de Beaufort and his documentary, The Connection. This (apparent) documentary about a drugs mule who travelled from Columbia to Britain with bags of heroin in his stomach has been accused of misusing footage, creating footage and unethical editing (BBC News, 1998). The Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger confirmed that these occurrences were not unique. He admitted that there was constant pressure on the filmmakers from production houses to come up with exciting, glamorous stories and to cut corners. Even the director, de Beaufort, later admitted to using techniques like enhanced editing and other devices to make his film to represent reality (BBC News, 1998).

For example, the cast and crew made two journeys, which had happened at two entirely different times in the year seem like one journey, and one location in a city seem like two separate locations. As a result, the people saw it as a very different film than what it really was. Later investigations then revealed that the mule who swallowed packets of heroin was not heroin at all. It also revealed that the plane ticket for the mule from Bogata to London had been paid by du Beaufort himself (BBC News, 1998).

As a result of all these startling revelations, the status of The Connection as a documentary becomes somewhat unsuitable. And as such, it becomes what most reality shows are today, a pretentious commentary on prime time reality.

Methods and Methodology  purity of means or of ends
It is said that a method of making a documentary is a statement in itself. Various documentaries of the bygone era have sculpted out the various documentary making methodologies like the Cinema vrit, the Kino-Pravda, the French New Wave and so many more. In recent times, Michael Moores Fahrenheit 911 has managed to do the same by mixing a directors personal interaction with the audience in filmmaking.

The reality TV genre also, in its own way, has various methodologies of creation. Some of them have a game show method, where some have a dating method, some have makeovers while some have unreal environments. All these are different methods of capturing reality for these two genres.
However, if we take a single example, that of the method of an undercover journalist, Donal MacIntyre, and his undercover work which he did on the Chelsea Headhunters would provide us with a different insight. MacIntyre spent two years in the company of the football hooligans to cover their work and their misconduct. His work was so thorough and extensive that he ended up collecting enough evidence to be able to convict one of the members of the group, Jason Marriner to a six year prison sentence. His work and the documentary resemble one word very strongly  and that is gritty. The entire film is shot with hidden cameras and microphones, therefore the image or the sound are never too clear but at the same time this succeeds in giving the audience a feel of the environment and the film. His images are often grainy and the sound is often faint with subtitling for some of the undecipherable bits.

As a result, what we get from an undercover documentarian work of a journalist is enough to bring in justice  a virtue very highly rated in our world. On the other hand, there are hidden cameras and hidden microphones which are used solely for the purpose of capturing a person in an involuntary act before the camera. This purpose behind this kind of an expos is not justice or righteousness but pure, perverse entertainment. A hidden camera is a very dangerous object if in the wrong hands, but in the hands of TV producers it is worse than a hand grenade. Taking something as simple as the example of Candid Camera where the hidden cameras worked to capture people being played pranks upon to the recent Undercover Boss, where hidden cameras take stock of the work environment, no unsuspecting person would like to be spied upon for another persons entertainment, yet Reality TV makes this possible, thereby bringing disrepute and, undoubtedly, ratings to the flourishing genre.

The Gremlins  Feeding the Beast
Paul Watson, the director of Rain in My Heart says that there are gremlins within everyone. The only difference is how different people deal with them. For example, if one is to take the case of the documentary Rain in My Heart by Watson where he directed 4 alcohol addicts during the rehabilitation process of each one for a period of a year, he saw and understood how different people give in to the different pressures which one is faced with in ones life. His commentary on the addiction that four people initially give in to and then fight with is heartrending in the most poignant way because one sees that life does not end where you would often wish it to  and that others still go on afterwards. With no scripts and no lines being fed to the actors there is hardly any breathtaking drama or overdone histrionics. What there is, is a long wait for life to either move on or end. He stays with his camera with people at their absolute worst for more than a year and collects little pieces of observation of human beings who have, more or less, murdered themselves (Watson, Paul, BBC News, 2007). This is reality  the non-television one.

Watson had often during the making of the film been asked if he was making a Reality TV and faced a lot of opposition due to peoples perception of Reality TV. He had no control over the unfolding of the events and thus just had to hope that he was at the right place at the right time. In spite of what he saw day in and day out in the rooms of the rehab centre, it never quite got easy for him. He would go to work each day wishing that it became better but after witnessing the deaths and the dying, it never quite did (Watson, Paul, BBC News, 2007). This feeling of helplessness and regret for the waste of human life as well as the sympathy and sensitivity of the director shines through his camera lens and the screen and one feels all these emotions with pity, remorse, hatred, anger and a little vulnerability (Watson, Paul, BBC News, 2007).

Compare this to a Reality show like Survivor or Big Brother  both have extremely high  ratings and have been duplicated the world over with phenomenal success. As one watches this, however, one realizes that there is no real sympathy on the part of the maker towards his participants. He is there to sell his product  his ensemble of living human beings  to the highest possible ratings This feeling also permeates through to the audience who do not sympathize with the people on the show but enjoy their discomfort, and often, their miseries (Dr Karim, Reef, 2009).

More often than not, dramatic scenes are often demanded by the producers to attract eyeballs. As a result, there is little that the actors can do but oblige. They throw things around, they call each other names and they either become the innocent of the villains. There is really no balance of human emotions in such situations, more often than not because balance does not sell (Poniewozik, James, Times Magazine, 2006).

As Watson very aptly puts it, It seems information, like honesty, slows the entertainment value, a view that can only please contemporary Chief Executives of TV channels, Members of Parliament and, of course, wannabes. He says that today, the reality TV audience laughs not with but at the people on TV, they do not empathize with the people in it and also prefer gimmicks and lies to truth and insights (Watson, Paul, BBC News, 2007).

Voyeurism at its Legitimate Best
Television has made the audience addicted to a form of voyeurism which supersedes all seemingly ethical display of human exhibitionism.

Today, Reality TV preys on this emotion  to show as much previously unseen, unfelt and unheard naked drama and unprotected emotions on screen as possible (Watson, Paul, BBC News, 2007). A variety of shows are based on this very sentiment. Shows like Big Brother, where people who have had no previous connection are all placed in a simulated environment where they have to stay locked away for three odd months and where they are then given tasks to perform so to be able to give rise to a reason for conflict and misunderstanding, take advantage of this audience need to see another human at his worst to somehow feel that there is worse out there (Dr. Karim, Reef, 2009).  The human being today has reached an emotional saturation level so deep that he hardly seems to mind the occasional emotional bursts of another human being, and in fact, enjoys them, as the soaring ratings of these shows would suggest.

In contrast to this, the documentary by Henry Singer, The Falling Man seems to uphold all the values, sympathy and humanity which would be required to deal with a subject as delicate as the very popular but very controversial photograph of a man jumping  falling off the Twin Towers in USA during the 911 attacks. First it all looked like falling debris. It took three or four to realize They were people, says James Logozzo, one of the people working in the Twin Towers (New York Times, 2001). The photograph by Richard Drew when it had first appeared in the American newspapers had raised a huge public outcry because people thought that the moment that was captured on camera was too frail and vulnerable at the time to be exposed to the shocked and traumatized citizens of the country (USAToday, 2002).

Several hundred people jumped to their deaths that day and the picture captured was of one of them. The photograph, they thought was too personal, too painful and too voyeuristic. It said too much of a dying mans desperation and his choice of death. Ultimately, they were choosing not whether to die but how to die. Nobody survived on the floors from which people jumped. (USAToday, 2002).
When you watch the documentary, you feel like a voyeur as you see the photographs and listen to the retellings of the people who saw it. Yet there is no perverse sense of pleasure in such voyeurism. Nobody would enjoy a sight like that. Sympathising with the people who fell, yes, but watching it for entertainment value it is not. As Watson puts it, a documentary is not about voyeurism, it is about recording hell (Watson, Paul, BBC News, 2007).

I didnt capture this persons death. I captured part of his life. This is what he decided to do, and I think I preserved that said the photographer Richard Drew. (Howe, Peter on Richard Drew, 2001).

Fame and Fortune
One of the many reasons that people participate in the gruesome Reality TV shows is their want, sometimes need, of fame and fortune (Dr. Karim, Reef, 2009). For some, Reality TV shows are a way to attain their 15 minutes of glory, for some its a ride up on the social ladder whereas for some its the need to be in the public spotlight. These desires of a commoner to become a celebrity are very nearly met by the reality shows. They have a great deal to offer any participant  instant fame, straight shot to recognition and a chance to make a name and a career in showbiz. However, these perks do not come without a heavy price to pay, and more often than not, these prices are too high for a normal person.

Today, viewers can tune in to Reality TV shows to see chefs become the next Iron Chef, dozens of women pandering to the whims of one man for a possible proposal of marriage, couples guzzling down live roaches and bathing in a vat of rats to win cash, and to see people undergo plastic surgery to become attractive. It is all available today in the name of entertainment. Dr. Karim suggests that despite common misconception, it is not always a basic lack in a person that makes him want to be famous (although sometimes this is the case) but a simple wish of someone to have a career in the glitzy streets of showbiz. Reality TV shows provide an easy entry ticket for this class of people.
However, this is not the best way to go, warns Karim, as the participants often experience grief, humiliation, shame and hedonism at the worst and withdrawal effects at the very least when the show, or the participant, go off air. After being subjected to 247 camera scrutiny, the sudden loss to seeming oblivion affects the mind and body of several participants, causing many of them to develop behavioral problems and one to even commit suicide (Dr. Karim, Reef, 2009). It is no wonder, he says, that nearly every couple on a reality series  Britney Spears and K-Fed, Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey, Hulk Hogan and Linda Bollea, for example  have split.

When comparing this to the documentary by Molly Dineen called Geri made in the year 1999, one sees captured on tape the aftereffects of immense fame and fortune which have been showered upon some people who suddenly lose the fame. This documentary, made on the life of Geri Halliwell, ex-Spice Girl immediately after the band split outlines the initial three months of Geris withdrawal from fame through Dineens camera (Geri  through the looking glass, BBC News, 1999). What she recorded were interviews of Geri as she reminisced about her golden past, shared her unfulfilled dreams of fame and fortune and some footage of the family members of Geri, dispensing advice.

However, more important than all of this were her recordings of Geri as she moved from being a confident, vivacious, famous pop star to being a shy, nervous woman, lacking in confidence, the symbolic poor kid at school  (Geri  through the looking glass, BBC News, 1999)

Although she also captures Geri in some heartwarmingly sweet moments, what mostly comes on screen is a woman in withdrawal and trying to come to terms with life as a normal person  without the spotlight. Brilliantly done, this documentary captures to perfection Geri in all her transitional moments. This is what Reality TV participants must feel like, one could assume, once the cameras are off.

The Message
Whatever may be the genre or method of making a documentary, one thing that it almost never fails to have is a message  an opinion  trying to be put across by the maker of the documentary to the viewers. Be it a social commentary or a political stand, a quest for justice or an expos of the unjust, almost every documentary has a soul of its own, a message that is sometimes subtly, sometimes vehemently, passed on by the maker to the audience.

From Battleship Potemkin to Fahrenheit 911, the examples of political commentaries in film have been many. Hundreds of filmmakers the world over have tried to make their stance clear and awaken the public with the use of film. Similarly, when one sees the documentaries on human life, social films with a social message it seems to resonate with something inherent in ones nature because one always remembers that the source material is real.

One such example could be the documentary Capturing the Friedmans by debutant documentary maker Andrew Jarecki. When he started out, he wanted to make a documentary about party clowns, one of whom was David Friedman. What he ended up doing was putting to film, and from there to the public memory, a story of the Friedman family. The normal seeming family of two parents and three sons was badly ripped apart when it came to public knowledge that the father and a son were child molesters. What we see in the film are self-shot footage of one of the sons, interviews of the mother and one brother and the police officials, lawyers and parents who were involved in the story when it occurred.

One aspect which shines through in Jareckis filmmaking is his impartiality to both the sides, the Friedmans as well as the Court which had ruled against them. He narrates the story and all the evidence related to the incidents with no biases, letting the audience decide whether anything untoward did genuinely occur. As a result, he is ambiguous in certain places, but leaves enough scope for the audience to be able to draw conclusions of their own, or at the very least question a previously unquestioned judgment with impartiality.

But wait, for a subject that had raised such hue and cry when it was exposed to the public, why would one want to make an impartial film He makes the entire film impartial to deliver one message  that the Friedmans could have been innocent. Or at least if not innocent, then not as guilty as they were made out to be. He maintains throughout the making of the film that the people involved in the case were not guilty of the charges levied against them (Edelstein, David, 2003). Of course he later changes this statement to one of ambiguity and letting the audience decide during the marketing as it is a better promotional line (Edelstein, David, 2003).

This one stand, and this one film, changed the way the Friedmans were seen  making them not sin free, but at least lesser villains. Today, David runs a successful entertainment business, free from the burden of the past. Such has been the impact of the social message of one filmmaker.

As opposed to this, a Reality TV show hardly ever has anything significant to say. There is hardly ever any political message or social commentary in the business of Reality TV Entertainment. The producers usually look for maximum ratings in minimum time, thereby compromising any potential these shows could have of having a positive impact on society. Reality TV is usually associated with frivolous, gimmicky antics and histrionics indulged in by the producers to maximize visibility. As a result, this has at the worst, a negative impact on the audience, and at the best, no long term impact at all (Dr. Karim, Reef, 2009).

Is there any real difference
So what is the difference between the two Perhaps the difference is the way in which this is accepted by the media and the public.

One truth which cannot be denied in this day and age is that everyone somewhere is running behind money and fame and everyone fudges the truth a little bit to suit what they like to call enhanced viewing or in simple terms, artistic exploitation.

Today, Reality TV is openly acknowledged in the media as being hardly real but does this discredit it as an entertainment medium Not really. Similarly, documentaries today are seen as factual descriptions of real events but are hardly ever purely so. The only line of distinction between the two, possibly, is how far each can stretch the truth.

Documentaries would have a lot less leeway in terms of misrepresenting the facts as it is still seen as a medium of journalism and authentic documentation of authentic events. If someday this definition changes, the restrictions might reduce, but more or less, people expect documentaries to be real. Those which do not match up to the standards set, like The Connection, are discredited by the public as being farce. This definitely does not make for good ratings. So, even from the point of view of getting good ratings, documentaries would have to be authentic. Albeit, they would take much longer to make and would be difficult to come by.

Thus, its cheaper cousin the Reality TV thrives in the entertainment business. As long as not sold as authentic, Reality TV (as incorrectly named as it may be) will definitely continue to attract eyeballs, due to the simple reason that people will never stop craving seeing others at their worst. Call it sadism, if you wish, but for human beings today, this is an inexplicable need. Reality TV which was seen as a fad in 1949, a phase in 1990s and a chapter in time at the start of the millennium is an entire epic just starting to be written.

John Lennon once very popularly quoted Reality leaves a lot to the imagination. Little did he know

Lauded by critics as one of the best and most memorable films that showcase the life of organized crime, it blends Drama, Action, Serious Humor and Suspense in a masterpiece that does not fail to disappoint, even for those who are not fans of the genre. Critics in IMDB (The Internet Movie Database (various)) branded it as flawless and perfect, praising its magnificent cinematography as well as its interesting plot.

Adapted from a novel and screenplay by Mario Puzo of the same name, the film was launched in 1972 and was directed by Francis Ford Copolla. The film stars veteran such as Marlon Brando as the titular main character, Don Vito Corleone, Al Pacino as his son and decorated WWII hero Michael Corleone, Robert Duvall as the Corleones right hand man Tom Hagen, and others.

The story focuses on the life and times of the Corleone family, one of the main Italian mobs that control most of New Yorks criminal operations, as well as the influence of various politicians and judges within the city. Headed by the highly charismatic and highly influential Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando), their family keeps its power and dominance through gambling rings, women and doing favors for various friends of the family. The Corleone family, however, is put to the test when a member of a rival family wants to start a business selling drugs within the city. As the old ways of the Corleone family clash with the modernist ideas of the rival families, the fate of the family now falls on the hands of the Dons hesitant and somewhat reluctant son, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino).

The film makes a wondrous and splendid recreation of the gritty times of organized crime in the 1940s, and this is no mean feat in terms of production. Every scene is fleshed out and the script noticeably well - written and well - executed. Tensions in the movie are well - plotted, and the performance of the actors is remarkable and well - refined. No signs of mindless violence here, as the action scenes are limited but well enough to keep the story interesting and the film contained in doing what it had set out to do.

The films self - containment is based on the films engaging message The importance of family and loyalty. Certain films over the years have tackled the theme for years after The Godfather, with examples such as Goodfellas (1990) and Casino (1995), and even crossing towards Mafia - themed TV series such as Gungrave (2003) and The Sopranos (1999). But none of them could come close to the emotional portrayal of the subject in The Godfather, where traditions and family laws are much important than blood and family ties.

There are 3 scenes that show just how well - portrayed the main theme is throughout the film.

The theme radiates well enough in the very first part of the movie where one of the Corleones, Connie, was wed to Carlo Rizzi. Here, the idea of tradition and respect for the Don and his family is well established, from the way others would come and pay respects to him and his daughter, to the way they would ask for his wisdom and guidance. Bonaseras moving speech and (beg) for vengeance in the first few minutes is an example of this, as well as the Dons influence over Johnny Fontane, a famous actor and singer. An example where family ties is portrayed as something that matters within the wedding is the scene where the Don was insistent on having his family together for a family autograph, to which he expresses this by saying Were not taking a picture without Michael. (Brandon and Pacino)

Another major part in the film that promotes the theme is on the acts of vengeance towards other families in the scenes following Don Corleones failed assassination. The family was portrayed to be in disarray, and the Dons sons were seen to be having different opinions on the matter. Tom Hagen, the familys right hand man, wants to forgo the assassins deal as to prevent further bloodshed. But the elder son, Sonny Corleone, wanted to take revenge by declaring war over the rival family that was responsible. In the end, it was Michaels drive to take vengeance and upbringing the honor to their family the key that drove them to retribution. This decision has unforeseen consequences however, as the war escalated, Michael was forced into hiding in Sicily, and Sonny was murdered (Brandon and Pacino).

While the first and second major parts discuss the emphasis on blood relations and family ties, there is a major part in the movie that talks of a third nature of family that is portrayed to transcend the two, and that is family traditions. With the acts of vengeance put to a halt and the Corleones are backed to the wall in favor of the other major families entry into the narcotics business, Michael Corleone eventually overcomes his reluctance in taking over and starts a chain of events that puts every family rival to their deaths. The purpose of this was not just for power, but for keeping up with the family creed of leaving the narcotics business untouched. The tension on the scene is heavily emphasized as the killings were well - synchronized with Michael taking vows at the altar on his godsons baptism.

To finalize, the three major scenes shown above are just a mere example and emphasis to how the concept of family is well  portrayed in the film. However, it is these three major scenes that show how the movie skillfully executes the story in a calculating and natural way that would make it seem real, and would grip movie-goers as they explore just how beautiful but melancholic family life is in the underworld business as well as in realistic situations.

To finalize, the three major scenes shown above are just a mere example and emphasis to how the concept of family is well  portrayed in the film. However, it is these three major scenes that show how the movie skillfully executes the story in a calculating and natural way that would make it seem real, and would grip movie-goers as they explore just how beautiful but melancholic family life is in the underworld business as well as in realistic situations. And as the film portrays sadly, there is no such thing as a quiet life nor escape when it comes to being a member of the family.

Personally, the movie is a great experience. And while I personally find that the movie could use more depth in portraying criminal business in a fashion similar to Goodfellas or Gungrave, where the film lacks, it makes up with its superior characterizations, character development, level of detail, and mood setting. That is to say, this is NOT your typical gangster flick laden with action and gunfire that pops up in the screen similar to gunfests like The Matrix trilogy, nor is this about the grim and brutal reality of a mobsters business. No, this movie treats the mob as it should be in the first place a family governed by rules, traditions, and even honor, despite their systems being heinously different from the legal norm.

The Fall a movie released in May 2008 is set in the 1920s in a hospital in Los Angeles where an injured stuntman Roy begins to tell another patient - a little girl Alexandria with a broken arm, a fantasy story about 5 mythical heroes. He mesmerizes her with the fanciful story that takes her far away from the hospital melancholy and transports her into foreign landscapes of her imagination. To keep the girl interested in the story he interlaces it with her family and people she likes from the hospital. Although Roy develops a friendship with Alexandria, he has an ulterior motive. Through the tales he gains her trust and tricks her into stealing morphine from the hospital pharmacy so that he can attempt suicide.

The Fall is directed by Tarsem Singh, who also directed The Cell, another visually stunning movie. There are plenty of amazing things about the movie, but most of the times it is weird for the sake of it. Nothing is ever given explanation or intensity, so it seems comical like the Italian explosives expert who for some reason is dressed in a Chinese robe and hat. Its also oddly violent.  The tone of the movie in general is awkward and shuttling between playful and morose. It is a waste because the acting is terrific for the most part. The young Untaru and Pace both give terrific performances.

The movie took part in the following Film festivals Toronto International Film Festival, Berlin International Film Festival, Los Angeles Film Festival, Sitges International Festival of Fantastic and Horror Cinema, Jakarta International Film Festival, Istanbul Film Festival, Amsterdam Fantastic Film Festival, Seattle International Film Festival, Maui Film Festival and Biografilm Festival.

Tarsem Singh largely financed the film with his own funds, because he wanted to make the film according to his own vision, and paid members of the cast and crew on an equal basis rather than the typical Hollywood way. The marketing strategy for the movie was not great. Roadside Attractions couldnt create a decent marketing strategy for the film, due to which it could not reach out to a wider audience. Also, the scathing reviews at the Toronto International Film festival resulted in the movie not being sold for distribution.

In conclusion The Fall would be a favorite for some people due to the dazzling imagery and brief moments of humor but it is still not enough to distract you from the dull narrative. It ultimately disappoints because you can see what this movie could have been but cannot excuse it for what it finally became. In spite the above and the fact that it drowned out at the summer box office by films that are bigger, louder, and far less interesting, its bound to find a more appreciative audience in the years and decades to come.

The Orphanage is a film produced by Guillermo del Toro along side a first time director, Juan Anotonio Bayona is a ghost film shot in the beautiful coastal areas of Spain. The film focuses on the character of Laura, played by Beln Rueda who once was an orphan herself. Laura together with her husband, Carlos, portrayed by Fernando Cayo, and their son Simon, played by the cute little boy, Roger Prncep stayed in a big, towering colonial mansion which was the orphanage in which Laura was part of before.

Laura and Carlos intend to turn their mansion into a home for children with special needs. This was most probably because of their only son being lonely and was getting too involved with his imaginary friends named Watson and Pepe. At some point in the film, Laura went for a stroll with her son, Simon to the beach, Laura brought her son to the cave she once knew and let him wander inside for awhile. When she went inside to check up on him, she was surprised to see that Simon was talking to a new invisible friend named Tomas. Simon even asked her mother if they could take Tomas home in which she had no reply. During their walk back to their home, Simon was dropping shells along the way in which he said was for his friend Tomas to follow. Things started to get weird and creepy from then on.

Simon started finding out information about him dying soon because of the HIV virus and that he was an adopted child. According to Simon, this was told to him by his 5 invisible friends. Things were getting from bad to worse, when Simon disappeared during the opening of the home for children with special needs. This was also the time when the ghost of Tomas first appeared. The ghost was wearing a mask made out of an old brown sack and an orphanage uniform in which Laura too wore back in the days when she was still in the orphanage. The character of Tomas was quite creepy.

Simons disappearance was made known throughout the region with pictures of the little boy posted on almost every street post. Search turned out empty for days, then months. But creepy sounds were never absent from their houses during these time.

Frustration is kicking Laura that she had to turn to spiritual mediums to find out whether her son was still alive. During the visit of the mediums in her house, they heard the kids from the orphanage before and their tragic story started to unfold. The five kids who were also Simons invisible friends were murdered by a character named Benigna, who was the keeper in the orphanage and also the mother of Tomas. She poisoned the five kids during one of the meals, which was the result of their deaths. This was done a week after the departure of Laura from the said orphanage. Tomas on the other hand was accidentally killed by the five kids by luring him into the cave near the beach using seashells as a follow path. Inside the cave, the kids removed his mask, revealing his deformed face. The kids ran upon seeing the face, Tomas was left in shame for what happened. He was caught up with the rising tides where he drowned and died. The police and inspectors decided that this was no murder for it was only childs play that caused the death of Tomas. This was the reason why she did the murder of the kids. The five kids whom were poisoned were buried inside the coal storage outside the house.

The medium explains that she is near death that is why she is able to communicate with the dead, the same thing was happening for Simon before his disappearance. He was near death due to his illness, making him able to interact with the dead. This was not believed by Carlos and the inspector who was invited by Carlos himself. They thought that the mediums were just fakes and are only after their money. Laura on the other hand believed and when Carlos decided to move out of the house and just move on with their lives, Laura asked for two days to be alone in the house for her to completely finish what she need to do.

When she was finally alone, she started turning the mansion back to its old look and started calling out the ghosts of the children by a game. When the ghosts started appearing, they lead her to a door that leads to a basement. It was quite hidden and was therefore difficult to find. There she finds the body of Simon with a sack mask on his face, and the puzzle was starting to materialize when she realized that she played a role in the death of her adopted son. She accidentally blocked the door with metal poles when trying to look for Simon during the opening party of the home for children with special needs. She also realized that all the noise she heard at night after Simon went missing were Simon trying to get out of the room.

Realizing her fault, she started taking in all of Simons medication where she overdosed and died with the companionship of the kids and her son, Simon in her arms. He wished her to stay and to take care of the orphans which she willingly obliged. The next scene was the tombstones of Laura, Simon and the kids in which Carlos was dropping a flower onto. After that, the scene takes us back to the house where Carlos finds a pendant or medallion of St. Anthony which he gave to Laura on the floor. The wind blows and the door of the room were the orphans stayed opened. Carlos just smiled.

Overall, the film was quite ok, not your typical ghost films, it has a few surprise scenes it also has a simple yet good twists. The storyline was quite confusing at first but its understandable. What made this film interesting is that thriller scenes are not exaggerated. The movie earns it scares, never faking us out with quick cuts or sudden noises, but settling into our bones and chilling us in a way weve forgotten was possible (Rich, K. 2008).  It gave the viewers the natural thrill of the scenes and its simplicity, even the props used.

There are many haunted house movies that made viewers scream. This movie was able to deliver the messages of haunted house movies gloomy, creepy, and mysterious. The Orphanage is a creepy haunted house movie that places Spain on the map as the new masters of horror and suspense (Pejkovic, M.R. 2008). The gloomy effect from the beginning was forgotten when the ending with Carlos, smiling and relieved made it a feel good atmosphere. This film shows the devotion of a mother towards her son whether it be your own or adopted. A good film all in all.

Ingmar Bergman s The Seventh Seal is a film that explores the themes of transgression, abjection and the very faith of mortal men during dark times. Questions of faith among those who are meant to hold Christianity high, degraded conditions of despair, suicide, disease and the horrors of war are among a few of the examples of abjection and transgression which appear throughout the film.

In The Seventh Seal, the knight Antonius Block and his squire, Jons, return home to Sweden from ten years of horrible fighting in the crusades to find their country ravaged by plague. In the throes of a crisis of faith, Antonius encounters Death. Unprepared to die, Block challenges Death to game of chess in order to buy time to find answers about God and faith. In particular, he is concerned that his pursuit of a life of faith in God has caused him to abandon his wife in order to commit and to witness the horrors of the crusades only to return to a land infested by a horrifying disease.

Intellectually, the conflict of the film is set up when Antonius and Jons arrive at a church where an artist is painting the dance of death. Antonius seeks counsel of a priest in the confessional, stating,  My life has been a futile pursuit, a wandering, a great deal of talk without meaning.  He goes on to give away his strategy to defeat Death in their chess game, only to realize that there was no priest to take his confession. Rather, he finds not only that he has given his confession to Death, but that he has given away his strategy to his very opponent. Meanwhile, Jons converses with the painter while creating a painting of his own, a self-portrait. He presents it and says,  This is squire Jons-world. He grins at Death, mocks the Lord, laughs at himself and leers at the girls. His world is a Jons-world, believable only to himself, ridiculous to all including himself, meaningless to Heaven and of no interest to Hell.

Jons transgressive attitude toward faith and disregard for the taboo of rejecting faith at such a time appears to allow him freedom from the same duty that Block feels towards Christian faith as well as a sense of humor, albeit a dark one, about the horrors of the scenes through which they travel. On the other hand, Block states later, in a picnic with a group of actors whom they encounter, that he considers his faith a burden of unrequited devotion. This same scene is one of few if not the only scene in which he finds any respite from the horrors that surround him, his struggle with faith and battle with mortality. He says,  I ll carry this memory between my hands as if it were a bowl filled to the brim with fresh milk And it will be an adequate sign-it will be enough for me.

Following this scene, the knight and his company encounter a monk who has set a young girl to be burned at the stake as a witch. Though all are appalled at the scene, they see she is too close to death to be saved. Antonius asks her to summon the Devil so that he may ask him of God. In an ambiguous moment, she states that she has, but the Devil is invisible to Block.

A sub-plot involving Jons and the very priest, Raval, who sent the knight and his squire on the pious journey that led Block to abandon his wife and endure so many horrors, expands the breadth of issues at hand. Early in the film, Jons finds Raval raping and robbing a young girl. Jons is quick to threaten to wound him if they ever again meet as he rescues the girl from his grips. Jons goes on to make good on this promise when he finds him humiliating an actor who has joined their company. Later the group encounter him in a forest. At this point, Raval has been struck with the plague.  He stumbles upon Blocks, Jons and company and begs them for water. The very young woman whom Raval had raped leaps to his aid, however, Jons holds her back. He tells her, remorselessly, it s meaningless.

In the final scene, the group meets their end. Antonius pleads with God desperately for his mercy. Jons  girl has a much different reaction. She kneels before Death with a smile, saying,  it is finished.  So, throughout the film, the character of God is ever-present throughout the film, but only in the minds of the characters of the story. Ultimately, it is God s silence that speaks most throughout the journey. The reality of their lives exists, through good and through bad, through the corporeal reality they encounter, as well as the human thoughts and emotions they experience. Much of this reality is expressed through abject conditions of plague, despair and warfare. The lone moment of joy which offsets the overall atmosphere of the movie is not spiritual in a Christian sense, but a moment of Earthly pleasure.

Whats Eating Gilbert Grape was filmed in 1993 in Texas and was directed by Lasse Hallstrom. It is a critically-acclaimed film that featured family values. It is a story about a family living in the fictional town of Endora consisting of a morbidly obese mother, Bonnie her two sons, Gilbert and Arnie and two daughters, Amy and Ellen. Following the death of her husband, Bonnie had done very little and resorted to eating which caused her physical state. She never goes out and prefers to stay within the confines of their home doing very little activities. Gilbert, on the other hand, is busy taking care of his brother, Arnie, who happens to be mentally-challenged. He is also the one in charge in making the necessary repairs in their old farmhouse. The two girls, Amy and Ellen, are the ones in charge of the household chores and cooking.

The Grape family, just like any other family, have their own issues and concerns. Bonnies life, for instance, had been greatly affected by the death of her husband. What used to be a beautiful woman has turned into a dysfunctional mother who lost control of everything  her motherhood, social life, strength, confidence and even her disposition to handle her familys conflicts. Although she loves her children very dearly, she had neglected her responsibility of serving and providing for her children, particularly Arnie, who has a disability. Gilbert serves as the familys stronghold. His affection for Arnie is unconditional and had crossed all barriers. He also keeps the family together despite peoples judgements with regards to his family and the ridicule that his mother gets from their town. Gilbert is the Grape familys protector.

In the story, many conflicts are presented to the audience. Arnies disability and his habit of climbing up the towns water tower when he is left unsupervised had been major conflicts in the story. This had caused trouble for the family. Although Gilbert almost always manages to fix everything, their family cannot escape certain consequences and peoples judgements towards them. Still, he is capable of communicating efficiently with Arnie and strives to make him obey and listen.

When Arnie was arrested following an incident wherein he went up the water tower causing a commotion to build in their town, Bonnie had to endure the ridicule she had gotten from the townspeople when she went out of their house for the first time in years to take her son from the police station. The scene clearly expressed how a mother is capable of doing everything in order to save her child. Bonnie had faced the odds and bore the gawking, laughing, picture-taking and pointing she got from the townspeople just to get to his son.

Gilbert, who made it a point to protect his brother, had shown the qualities of a responsible and loving older brother. He portrays strength of character while maintaining his sensitivity. His involvement with a woman took a great deal of his attention causing him to commit several shortcomings towards Arnie. At some point, Gilberts neglect had caused a great impact on Arnies behaviour. Still, his brotherly love and pure concern for Arnie always leads him back to him regardless of how severe their conflicts had been at some point.

Arnie, despite being a mentally-challenged boy, is characterized by a fun-loving and playful nature. He is capable of winning the hearts of the audience not only for his affectionate character and confidence in himself but also for his pure innocence. Although his disability causes a lot of conflicts within their family and even in their town, he manages to rise above it all because he is loved and cared for by his siblings and mother. Gilbert always comes to the rescue.

Bonnie longs to live just to see Arnie reach the age of eighteen. Sure enough, she got her wish and died following Arnies eighteenth birthday. The weakness of her character ended in a quiet death. This in turn challenged the strength of Gilberts character. Rather than giving his mother a decent and dignified funeral, he chose to burn down their farmhouse with his mothers lifeless body in it to spare her mothers memory from ridicule and judgements. He doubted the townspeople would pay his mother a bit of last respect. Instead of giving them something to make fun of, he just did what he thought would serve his family best. He had good intentions but it did not anyhow give their mother the honour she deserves despite of her shortcomings.

Just as Bonnie had been weak in dealing with her husbands death, Gilbert had demonstrated weakness also in facing the death of his mother. He managed to escape from the responsibility of serving his mother for the last time and from having to face the people of Endora regarding his mothers silent death.

Just like Gilberts family in this film, all families from all walks of life have their own issues, conflicts and secrets. Even in real life, families sometimes have to live with ridicule and judgements brought about by other people. However, it is the manner and attitude in facing these odds that truly matters. Just as Bonnie bravely faced the gawking and pointing of the townspeople when she went after her son in the police and just as Gilbert did his best to convince Arnie to go down the water tower to save him from trouble, every person has the right to defend and protect his or her family. It is more than just a choice it is an obligation and a responsibility.

What Gilbert did towards the end of the film is debateable whether it is right or wrong. He wanted to spare the death and remains of his mother from being ridiculed. However, he failed to give her honour for the last time. And if he chose to give her mother a decent funeral, it would mean having to endure other peoples responses. Gilbert failed to see what might have been because of what he chose to do in the end. Still, his dedication to care for Arnie even after their mothers death somehow justified his character and principles.

Mediterraneo is a catching comedy about how war has altered the lives of eight soldiersironically, they have not even put their guns into good use.

The story starts with the introduction of each of the characters who seemed like they were going on a war.  They were aboard a ship that had to take them to an island in the Aegean.  They arrived at the island, searched the village for any inhabitantsthey found not a single souland set up camp.  A few days later, they found out that they were not alone on the island, and that there were actually inhabitants in the area.

The lone priest told them they that hid because they thought they were Germans, and that they were going to take them away.  Previously, anyhow, the Germans took their young men and they had yet to return, which explains why the people were composed mainly of women and children, and a sprinkling of old men.

The soldiers learned to fit in with the crowd they helped the people, played outdoor games with them, and joined in their festivities, eventually becoming less uptight about the war.  Three years have passed, and they did not have a single idea of what was happening across the sea.  Their only radio was broken when one of the soldiers got into a fit of rage after his mule was accidentally shot.  There were no boats in the island, and their ship was long ago destroyed by an enemy fleet.  Their guns were taken from them by a deceitful Turk.  In other words, they had no means of contacting or getting news from Italy.

In the span of three years, they have gone through a lot Lieutenant Montini was able to finish painting the frescoes in the church Sergeant Lo Russo became less uptight with everything they were and were not supposed to do, like mingle with the people and one of the privates, Farina, has seen the love of his life in a prostitute named Vassilissa whom he had married.  The brothers Libero and Felice have found a threesome in the form of a shepherdess, and Noventathe Deserter, as they call himeventually found a way out of the island via a hidden boat.  Strazzabosco, the one who destroyed their radio in a fit, found a new mule to love.

They eventually were able to learn of the developments of the war from a pilot whose engine stalled and who had to land on their island.  The pilot told them that a lot had happened former enemies were now friends, and previous friends were now enemies.  All the while, they were protecting the island from any British attacks, when the Brits were actually their friends.
The war ended, and Italy was said to be regenerating from the ruins.  They all wanted to go home, excluding Farina who has decided to stay with his new wife Vassilissa.  The Brits escorted them home.

The story ends in a melodramatic reunion of Farina, Montini and Lo Russo, now old men.

Social Issues
There are several social issues laid down in the movie.  These proved to be critical in the understanding of war and life two different concepts rolled into a rather ironic adaptation.

Drafting of soldiers.  The men on the island were taken away from their families by the Germans.  The men were taken home when the war ended, but by their quantity, Id assume that they were the only ones left.

Prostitution.  Vasilissa is a prostitute, someone whose mother, grandmother, and even sister had the same profession.  He told Farina that she was a prostitute since it was logical.   The movie did not tell us if there were anymore prostitutes apart from her, but since it was a small island, we could assume that she was the only one.

Language barrier.  When the soldiers finally met the villagers, they had a hard time communicating with them.  It was a manifestation of a difference in culture.  Fortunately, Montini could understand a little Greek, and the priest Italian, too.

Religion.  There was only one priest on the island, an old man who asked Lieutenant Montini to paint the frescoes.

Gay rights.  Although this is just a passing realm in the film (where Colosanti told Lo Russo that he loves him) and not really a major one, but in 1991 the world is still conservative that a gay relationship is still a taboo.

Peace.  After the war, peace came of course.  But for the soldiers, peace came during the war, since they were cut-offphysically and emotionallyfrom the harsh realities of WWII. The soldiers found peace on the island and soon wanted to become part of it.

War.   War is complicated.  It is not something you can just describe in one or two sentences.  When the pilot informed them that the war was over, he mentioned that friends became enemies and vice versa.  That is how complicated it is.  They were lucky they were assigned to a far-off island and never had to experience it all.

Technicals
Of course, movies are meant to take you into the world of the film.  Mediterraneo made use of several perspective shots, low angle for emphasis, high angle for a birds eye view, and eye level, like we were into the conversation of the people.  Every angle gave the audience the chance to fit into several perspectives, be it of the soldiers, Vassilissas, or the childrens.

The lighting was appropriate too.  They used enough lighting for the night scenes (their smoking session with the Turk) and day scenes.  They were able to capture not only the actor and his speech, but also the texture and the feeling of the situation.  Since it was hot on the island, they shot arid places and waving atmospheres you can feel the heat and humidity even when inside an air-conditioned room.

The music, though purely instrumental, gave life to the scene it underscores.  A soft, easy music can be heard while Noventa thought about his wife upbeat during the celebration of Farina and Vassilissas wedding, and dark and ominous when the Munaron brothers were looking for a possible intruder while at their post.

Critically Acclaimed
The movie won six out of nine nominations from four different award-giving bodies.  In 1991, the film received Best Editing, Best Film, Best Sound, and was nominated for Best Director, Best Producer, and Best Screenplay at the David di Donatello Awards.

In 1992, it has won the Silver Ribbon from the Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists for Best Director the Audience Award at the Palm Springs International Festival and an Oscar at the Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film.

In a review of the film, Berardinelli (1992) said that the film is not worthy of the award since its plot is lacking in complexity.  He notes, however, that the characters in the story are the ones that made the movie bearable to watch the changes in their personalities, especially of Lo Russo, were manifestations that one can change if also given a change in the environment.  These changes, he said, is evidence of the tranquility of the island working its magic on them.

Moreover, Berardinelli argued that the film had no significant contribution to the genre of war films.  In fact he even said that it only scratches the surface of too many issues.  The film did not delve deep into a specific social issue, but introduced a whole bunch without making an effort to expound them as per the audiences interaction.  Overall, he said that the movie is fun and too light, but is far from landmark effort.

Canby (1992) of the New York Times said the movie was a deliberately charming comedy and a sentimental movie.  He compared it with a Broadway musical, saying that it carries with it a characteristic of having a carefully calculated simulated innocence.  He agrees with Bererdinelli with the lightness of the film, claiming that it is not oppressive since it knows just how far it can go.  Moreover, he likes the portrayal of the roles of the soldiers.

Conclusion
I liked the movie.  I tried not to read any synopsis before watching it, so I will not be spoiled I thought it was one of those hardcore films about war, but I was wrong.  It was the complete opposite.  I felt the beauty of the island, like it embodies the peacefulness that the director wants to portray in the movie.  The island, said to be out-of-the-way, can be likened to a refuge in times of war, with the tranquility of the ocean separating them from the hostilities abroad.

The characters were a collection of misfits clumsy soldiers who (when I was still thinking it was a gory war movie) would end up dead with accidental shooting.  I loved how they seemed to complement the personality of the others Lo Russos bossiness over Montinis leniency, Noventas hope of going back to his loved ones and Farinas newfound love in a prostitute, of all people.  The film connotes that it is actually possible for people to change, and that change is inevitable.  Change happened in their three-year vacation as the war ended.