Movies

Many Hollywood movies have taken up the cause of women and show them fighting against injustice. The Abused, Nuts and Born in Flames are three such movies released in the 1980s that portray women in trouble. In each one of these three movies, the main protagonist is a woman who has been wronged and is shown fighting for her rights in a male dominated society. This paper shall discuss these three movies and explain the prejudices and injustices that the main characters in these movies face and how they overcome them during the course of the movie.

The first movie I will discuss here is The Accused. Released in 1988, the movie tells the story of a young womans fight for justice after she is raped by three men. The audience does not find out what actually happened until the very end, but we do know that a rape has just taken place as Jodie Foster, playing Sarah Tobias, is seen rushing out of a bar in torn clothes while a young man (Bernie Coulson playing Kenneth Joyce) is seen reporting the rape to the police dispatcher over a public phone. From this dramatic opening the movie moves through several ups and down and it is only towards the end that the audience gets to see the actual rape. But the story deliberately unfolds in a manner that confuses the audience about Sarahs role in her getting raped.

In the first half of the movie, the audience is led to believe that Sarah was a woman with loose character who had the rape coming. While still I hospital, she is visited by the other main character in this movie, the Deputy District Attorney, Kathryn Murphy, played by Kelly McGillis. Kathryns initial reaction on seeing the case files seems to be that of cold indifference. It is obvious that she is here to do her job, and the fact that Sarah was drunk and on drugs did not help the rape case. Around this time, the movie also begins to slowly and systematically discredit Sarah. In a shot, which seems unimportant at the time, the camera focuses on a cars license plates which read SXY SADI. Once we realize that the car belongs to Sarah, it becomes easy to think of her as someone who would have invited rape on her. The next few scenes establish Sarahs less than perfect background. She tells Kathryn that she came from a broken home and that her father left her mother before she was born. We find that she lives in a trailer and when she calls her mother and expresses a desire to visit, her mother turns her down. In all these scenes, the director, Jonathan Kaplan, seems to play with the audience leading them on to doubt Sarahs creditability.

Despite these negative allusions in the opening scenes, the audience is also able to sympathize with Sarah as she encounters people who all react in different ways to her predicament. In the hospital, the nurse asks Sarah a series of private questions about her sex life while she is being photographed. Although the nurse seems to sympathize with Sarah, it becomes quickly apparent that the process of getting justice can be even more demeaning than the actual rape. In these initial hospital scenes, Sarah looks confused and distraught, not quite sure how she should react. Foster has given exceptional performance here, bringing out aptly a young girls confusion after such a violent, life-altering incident. She continues to give superb performance as she accompanies the police back to the bar and recognizes two of her assaulters. The audience can see a mixture of fear and hatred on her face as she points out the attackers. Fosters superb acting allows the audience to realize that the woman must really be suffering. If the hospital scene and the scene at bar bring out her predicament, her interactions with her boyfriend Larry (Tom OBrien), make us aware of her loneliness. After all she has been through, she is unable to find comfort from the people she is closest to. All these things make the audience sympathize with Sarah.

As the movie progresses, this dilemma in the audiences mind as to whether to sympathize with Sarah or to hold her partly responsible for her rape is further heightened. After the rapists get bail, their lawyer makes it sound like it was all entirely Sarahs fault. Although such public statements by defense lawyers are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it still leaves a doubt in the audience minds, even though Sarah refutes any such suggestion. Next we see Sarah drinking in the middle of the day to smooth out the edges, and the audience is forced to think if she might be an alcoholic who might have an invited sexual overtures after a drink too many. To add to that, when Kathryn asks her about the drinking, she says that sometimes she takes a hit of pot or something. In fact, she tells Kathryn that she had had half a joint, a couple of beers before she went to the bar. Obviously, this is a troubled woman who has made some questionable decisions in her life. To make matters worse, she even has a record with police for possession of illegal substance. Kathryn asks Sarah pointed questions about her behavior and dress which obviously do not go down well with Sarah. Sarahs outburst in the scene can be interpreted both as an indignant womans reaction to the unfairness of the system, or as anger being used to cover her faults. In all these scenes, the audience is not sure if Sarah was really raped and if raped, had she in some way invited it upon herself. Of course, the idea of the movie is that even if Sarah had indeed invited the assault, she still had a right to say no. But there is enough ambiguity to leave a doubt in the audiences mind.

As the movie proceeds, we realize that not only is Sarahs case weak, by even Kathryn is not really convinced about the rape and definitely does not think that she can win it. During a discussion with the Chief District Attorney, she makes it clear that this is not a winnable case and that if they were to go to trial, they would definitely lose. The Chief District Attorney advices her to make a deal with defense and get the rapists behind bar on charge that works. Kathryn takes his advice and make a deal with the defense for a reduced charge of reckless endangerment which carries a sentence of two and half year with the option to go out on parole after one year. Kathryn feels that under the circumstances she has got a good deal but Sarah feels that she has been sold out. In another outburst, Sarah barges into Kathryns home and tries to make Kathryn understand how she feels. Once again, Fosters acting makes the scene stand out. Sarah does not have the vocabulary to express herself and how she feels. But her anger at what had happened to her and how she was being treated by the District Attorney comes out clearly in this scene.

As Sarah tries to come to terms with the reality she breaks up with her boyfriend who was having a hard time dealing with the situation. She tries to put her past behind her and move on with her life. But during a shopping trip, she encounters a man who tries to get friendly with her. The man turns out to be one of the onlookers who had cheered on while Sarah was getting raped. He starts to tease and berate her and block her car with his pickup. Unsure what to do, we see Sarah snap as she rams her car repeatedly in to the pickup. She lands up in the hospital and when Kathryn meets her there, Sarahs situation makes her realize that she made a mistake. For the first time in the movie we see Kathryn moved enough by Sarahs predicament to have tears in her life. She decides that she has to do something to get justice for Sarah and spends the night preparing the case. After much reading, she finds a law which allows her to try the onlooker who cheered on the rape on the charges of criminal solicitation. The Chief District Attorney thinks that she does not have a case and tries to dissuade her without any success. Kathryn once again starts researching the case and gets Sally, Sarahs friend who was at the bar on the night of the rape, to identify some of the onlookers from a line-up. Sally identifies three men. Later while Kathryn is interviewing Sally for the case, she tells her that before getting raped, Sarah had said that she wanted to have sex with one of the guys who eventually raped her. Although she insists that it was a joke, the revelation once again puts a doubt in Kathryn and audiences mind about Sarahs credibility. Just as the audience had started sympathizing with Sarah, the director once again plants a doubt in the audiences mind. At the point it seems that Kathryn might be fighting a lost cause but she finds Kenneth Joyce, the man who had tried to report the rape. Kenneth agrees to testify in the court, then changes his mind but finally, after being confronted by Sarah decides to tell the whole story. It is finally at this point, that we get to see what had actually happened in the bar in a flashback as Kenneth tells his story.

As we watch the events leading up to the rape and the actual rape, we finally realize the message that the movie was trying to give all along. Although Sarah was indeed dressed provocatively, heavily drunk and even flirted with the men, she, like every other woman in the world, had every right to say no. A persons profession, character, behavior or past records do not make it alright to be raped. The movie, in a very forceful manner, brings across he point that a rape can never be justifiable. The director succeeds in his attempt by intentionally keeping the actual incidents in the dark and allowing the audience to form a negative opinion about Sarah. As a result, when the actual happenings of the night are revealed, the audience is forced to confront their prejudices.

Jodie Foster as Sarah Tobias gives a startling performance. Despite the script trying to discredit her all along, the audience is able to sympathize with her even though they may not believe her. Her fight for justice comes across as an incoherent, hysterical and confused struggle, as it reflects the characters background and upbringing. Yet, despite all the weaknesses in Sarahs character, when the movie ends, the audience is forced to accept that she had been wronged and deserved to get justice just like any other woman.

The second movie is Nuts, starring Barbara Streisand in the lead role. Nuts is essentially a court room drama in which Streisands character, Claudia Draper, fights for her right to receive a fair trial after the lawyer appointed by her family and the court appointed psychiatrist try to prove that she is mentally incompetent to stand trial. The movie is almost entirely played out in the court room, with key insights in to Claudias past being revealed through the testimonies of the witnesses and brief flashbacks.

As the movie starts we learn that Claudia is in the court on the charges of manslaughter in the first degree. The state moves to declare her mentally incompetent to stand trial based on psychiatrist report but Claudia objects to this. When her lawyer tries to reason with her, she attacks him and as a result, the lawyer drops the case and immediately leaves. The judge is forced to appoint a public defender, Aaron Lewinski (Richard Dreyfuss) who challenges the mentally incompetent charge placed by the state. In these initial sequences, Claudias body language and her behavior do come across as abnormal and the audience is led to believe that Claudia may really be mentally ill.

As Lewinski leaves the court, he is stopped by Claudias parents who insist that Claudia is sick and so should not be forced to stand trial. At this point, they come across as concerned parents while Claudia seems to be a troubled, rebellious child they are trying to protect. On his way to meet Claudia, he happens to meet Dr. Morrison, one of the psychiatrists who had declared Claudia incompetent. When asked, Dr. Morrison insists that Claudia is indeed sick and should not go to prison. Lewinskis first interaction with Claudia does not start on a positive note with Claudia at first simply staring at him in a catatonic way and then suddenly screaming at him for no apparent reason. It takes Lewinski some time to win her trust after which he decides that Claudia is indeed competent enough to stand the trial and he will represent him in the competency hearing rather than have her committed. However, when he approaches the district attorney for help, he tries to dissuade him, mentioning that Claudias father does not want her to go to trial. The movie reveals the truth behind Claudias behavior and the reason why she is in jail in bits and pieces and this is the first of those pieces. Claudias father had earlier seemed concerned about Claudias health but now it seems that he actually wants to prove that she is crazy.

As the movie progresses, the audience is allowed to form their own opinion about Claudias mental health. Unfortunately, Claudias behavior during her interactions with Dr. Morrison does not help her case as she comes across as a deeply disturbed person. Meanwhile, Lewinski visits Claudias apartment and brings her clothes including her undergarments. When Claudia realizes that Lewinski may have gone through her personal stuff, she loses her temper and once again starts screaming and shouting at him, even though she had been behaving quite well until then. These sudden mood swings have the affect of confusing the audience. At this point we also learn that Claudia was a highly paid call girl and that the reason she was facing trial was because she had murdered one of her clients in an act of self defense.

During the court proceedings, Claudia keeps interfering and interjecting and keeps disturbing the flow despite repeated warnings from the judge and Lewinski. Once again, the audience is led to believe that Claudia may indeed be unstable although she could also be simply angry at being put in an unjust situation. During the questioning of Dr. Morrison, we learn that during her stay at the mental hospital, Claudia had also attacked another woman, thus further weakening her case and putting more doubt in the audience minds. Dr. Morrison also reveals that Claudia came from a broken home and a broken marriage. This mention of her coming from a broken home, coupled with her earlier outburst at being called by her fathers name, Kirk, makes the audience realize that he may not be her real father.

When Lewinski wants to call Claudias mother to stand, Claudia strongly, almost violently objects to it forcing Lewinski to ask for a recess. During the recess, her hostile behavior towards her parents gives another clue to the reason behind Claudias problems. During her mothers testimonial, she reveals that Claudia began to withdrew in to herself at around the age of eleven and later there was a period of promiscuity. She goes on to describe a violent incident when Claudia was sixteen. During the entire testimonial, Claudia, who had been very vocal until now and constantly disturbing the court proceedings, chooses to remain absolutely quiet. In fact, when Lewinski tries to cross-question Claudias mother, Claudia objects by tapping loudly against a glass. Striesands acting at this time is exceptional as it brings out her pain. Even though at the point the audience has no idea what is the cause of her suffering, we can empathize with her for whatever it was that caused her to feel so much pain. Also the realization that it was her own mother who had let her down can be very disturbing.

The next testimonial is that of her stepfather and this proves to be the turning point of the story. Although Claudia had not suffered her background with Lewinski, when Claudia retorts sharply to her mothers comment that Kirk would never hurt Claudia, Lewinski suddenly realizes the reason behind aggressive behavior. We soon learn that it was because her stepfather molested her until she was sixteen and had she not turned violent at that age, he might have continued to do so. Striesands performance in this scene is exceptional, bringing out the years of pain that the young girl must have gone through.

The revelation also makes us realize that even though the movie is only concerned with her fighting for her right to stand fair trial, Claudia was a woman who had been fighting her own battles from a very young age. It also explains her distrust for everybody. Any person who had been let down by the people they trust most will always have problems trusting other people.

During her own testimonial, Claudia demonstrates her perfect understanding of the situation she was in, despite being under the influence of medicines. She also displays her exceptional wit, turning to judge in a playful manner to ask if something was legal or not before answering. And when the district attorney tries to discredit her by indirectly asking her about her profession, she goes into an explicit description of what she does for a living, making everyone in the courtroom squirm. Streisands acting during this scene and a scene later when she has another one of her outbursts as she tries to convince the judge that she was not mad is truly outstanding.

Claudia finally wins her right to get a fair trial but the process for her turns out to extremely painful one as her long kept secrets are revealed. As we learn more about Claudias past, we can better understand her behavior. Streisands performance plays a great part in helping us appreciate the pain that the young girl must have gone through as well as the trials she is facing at present when the system is somehow conspiring to keep her from getting her right of a fair trial. Although there is nothing exceptional about Nuts and the audience is able to guess half way through what the young girl must have experienced during the childhood, Streisands performance makes it special. As a young woman fighting against the system which allows a man to get away with raping a minor while does not give a woman even a chance to get a fair trial, Streisand brings out the various aspects of the character beautifully.

The third film under consideration in this essay is Born in Flames, a movie set in a fictional future, ten years after a socialist democratic party comes to power. In this new society, women, homosexuals and minorities are discriminated against and do not get the rights they deserve. The movie shows women getting fired from their work for no reason other than the fact that they are women. The Party seems to believe that women should only do housework and hence discourages women from working by reducing funding for daycares and advertising that women should do more housework. In this fictional future, crime against women is also on rise. Although the Party claims that rape and prostitution rates are lower than what they were before the revolution, the realities on the road seem to be much different. Women are harassed, molested and even raped on streets in broad daylight. And the rapists manage to get away because the party believes that there are no good and bad people and the rapists can be rehabilitated while the victims, the women, are allowed to suffer.

Set in such grim background, the movie tells the story of several protest groups who are fighting the system in whatever ways they feel is the best. Two of the main protagonists of the movie are Isabel (Adele Bertei) and Honey (Honey) who both run their own radio stations. Isabel, a white lesbian, operates Radio Ragazza while Honey, an African American is at the helm of Radio Phoenix. Although against the oppressive laws of the Party, they are both moderates who believe that they can change the system through their radio programs. There is also a Womens Army led by Hilary Hurst (Hilary Hurst), which has a more militant agenda. And then there is Adelaide Norris (Jean Satterfield), an African American lesbian woman and a political activist.
Adelaide Norris, the two radio stations and Womens Army are under investigation by the FBI. The movie is filmed like documentary and when we learn a lot of things regarding the main protagonists from the FBI agents as they discuss these protestors while looking at their file photographs. While they are investigating all of these people, there special worry is the Womens Army which is more militant and extremely secret. The FBI agents find it extremely difficult to find information about the Womens Army which is divided into many parts and each of these parts has their own leaders, which are rotated every few days. The FBI realizes that in order to disband the Army, they have to capture leaders, but find it difficult to find out who the leaders are even after they break into the Womens Armys office.

Meanwhile, the women go about raising support for their cause in whatever way they can. The two radio stations and Adelaide Norris do this by trying to raise awareness among the citizens. On the other hand, the more militant Womens Army is actively trying to recruit more people. There are several scenes of demonstrations and protests by women. In one such scene, women holding placards are shown chanting We want JOB, so we can EAT.

This conflict between the Party and the protestors comes to a head when Adelaide Norris is picked up by FBI at the airport when she arrives at New York City and later found dead in her prison cell. The government insists that it was suicide, however, the activists suspect foul play and start questioning if it was murder. The Womens Army decides that the Government has gone too far and during a Presidential address to the nation to get support for a proposal to pay women for housework, they storm in to the CBS station with guns, interrupt the broadcast and using the pictures of Adelaide Norris released by the Government, declare that Norris dead was not a suicide but a murder.

The news immediately mobilizes a lot more people and both Isabel and Honey express their desire to join the Womens Army, even though on an earlier occasion they had both refused because they felt that they could do better work through their newspaper. When Isabel and Homey start broadcasting inflammatory speeches in support of Womens army, their radio stations are mysteriously burned down. Not to be deterred, Isabel and Honey join hands to start a new radio station Phoenix Regazza Radio from the back of a van. In the meanwhile, the TV antenna on top of the World Trade Center is burnt down to prevent the government from telecasting their oppressive view points.

This movie is put together in a very incoherent way and its takes some time to understand what is going on. Also the performances by the lead actors were nothing noteworthy. The movie shows clear oppression of women from all walks of life. Unlike the other two movies discussed in this essay, this movie deals with the oppression and injustice on women in the entire society. But, because the poor production value fails to make an impact. Also the fictional setting of the movie does not help the cause.

On the whole, the three movies discussed in this paper each talk about wronged women and show different ways in which these women handle their problems. In The Accused, Sarah is shown as a poor barely educated young girl who does not know how to fight for her rights and so takes out her frustration on her lawyer whom she had come trust. In Nuts, Claudia is a wronged woman who is also not being given the right to get a fair trial and she fights for it by screaming and shouting and even violently attacking to get her way. And finally, in Born in Flames, the various groups of women come together to fight a society that oppresses women.

Centering on the 80s Manchester music scene, the movie traces the citys musical evolution from the days of Sex Pistols to the birth of rave culture and the arrival of the DJ. Tony Wilson, a journalist from whose viewpoint the events are narrated played a pivotal role in the formation of the independent music scene in England which changed the history of pop culture forever (IMDb,2009). His contribution is highlighted in the movie, which covers the rise and fall of Joy Division, the unprecedented success of New Order and the beginnings of dance music with Happy Mondays. As a source at Rotten Tomatoes(n.a) puts it
Wilsons energy gave an entire subculture of Manchester youths their place in the spotlight, forever changing the face of popular music in the process.

The creation of Factory Records and the ups and downs of the iconic Hacienda club parallel the histories of the bands. Taken from the Happy Mondays song title, 24 Hour Party People is a first hand look at the nascent phase in Manchesters independent scene which although, path paving, was too good to last forever.

Scene chosen

Ian Curtis, Joy Division vocalist, commits suicide
Location His house

2
The filmmaker has literally hundreds of ways to convey meanings. (Gianetti,. In this particular example Michael Winterbottom uses the setting, art direction, ambient sound and effective color coding to bring out the pathos of the scene.

THE ROOM
The moment Ian Curtis enters the house you notice a poster of Jim Morrison to his right and a little further down in the next room a poster of Elvis Presley, both great musicians who died young. In the sitting room near the window is an LP player the television is switched on but we are not shown the visuals although we can hear the audio which conveys loss of hope, a situation that cannot be redeemed. This essentially sets the mood of the scene. Next to the television set is an alcohol bottle which conveys that he drinks quite often. Above the television set is a photo frame with a picture of him, his wife and child. He gets up from his chair goes up to the television, turns the frame face down, this signifies that he is letting go of them and as though he doesnt want them to witness what is about to happen. The only ones to witness his death are the two posters, which foreshadow the event that is about to follow when he walks in.

The images shown on the television such as the fireman picking up the rifle parallels Curtis state of mind. This is shown by zooming into the television screen followed by a close shot of him sunk in his chair. The final shot of the scene shows his dangling feet in the foreground and in the background, the comedic almost farcical image of a chicken dancing on the television screen. This shot while creating a stark contrast may also convey the directors view on Curtis suicide as being an act of cowardice.

3
USE OF COLOR

The room is lit dimly to give it a dark and dingy feel. The color green is used quite prominently there are objects like the telephone and the dustbin which are green in color, the furniture is dull brown, thus these two colors enhance the mood of the scene. A hint of red is added by a little object placed near the window, through the window there is a reddish yellow light coming in. It gives the scene a dull feel as though something ominous is about to happen.

MUSIC

The only piece of music that plays in this scene is through the television show. The music is an absolute contrast to the situation its a funny, comedic tune. As a result the shot comes as a surprise because the last shot is a quiet shot and all of a sudden you are hit with the sound of a mouth organ and an image of suspended legs.

ACTING

Sean Harris who plays Ian Curtis in the movie does well to stay in character throughout, from the epileptic arm flailing stage act to the deadened numbness prior to his death. Being a heavy smoker, Ian Curtis and the cigarette became synonymous. Sean Harris portrays this habit with the same practiced hand as Curtis. He is seen with a cigarette in his mouth even before his death.

Wrapped in emotions and sentiments thats how the movie The Notebook journeyed all throughout its story. Based on the bestseller by Nicholas Sparks, wherein another movie was produced recently which undoubtly came out of his synthetic style of   sentimentality. The director, Nick Cassavetes, put everything in compact on how sentimental love could traverse within the individual souls of the main characters.

The romance told in the story was the enduring love between Noah (Ryan Gosling), a mill worker and aristocratic Allie (Rachel McAdams). The courtship was so typical, at a carnival, small streets, with the lure of ice cream, friends tagged along and even the existence of a chaperon added purity to a very natural sequence of a love affair.

The rich parents of Allie played the magnificent role in creating a future for Allie. Knowing that theres no aristocratic hope being with Noah, Allies mother kept all the letters he sent to her.  Thinking he lost his promise for her, Allie decided to move on by getting engaged to someone whom her parents approved in no time.

As told by Scott Holleran in his review The lovers are separated as implausibly as they were enjoinedthrough the clichd rich parentsand the story follows their lives through war, work and maturity.

All the letters sent to Allie were surprisingly kept by Allies mother and surrendered to her daughter by the time the couple were being reunited, obviously their destinies called for it. However, its in the meeting of Allie and Noah, several things after, where things were getting vague that the couple seemed to be parting ways again right after the long awaited reunion.

The hundreds of love letters, which Allie began to open and read swayed her to the past. Tears came running and sympathized to her well being and eventually summoned her to relinquish her undying love for Noah.
Allie drove back to the house, which Noah built in the name of his undying love for her.  And the spark of romance began to rekindle.

The story of the couple run in the trail of reality, the sappy courtship, the execution of romance, the undying love, the vows while stargazing, the overpowering aristocratic parents and the gravity between the rich and the poor couple. All these elements glowed in the story leaving deep impact towards the audience.

Adding to the essential recipe is the role of old age. Its the old Noah who told the story to his old Allie who was then confined at a nursing home due to degenerative disorder. He stayed with her as a stay in himself and became a storyteller of their own love story to help her regain her memory and his beloved wife.
Their grown up children were patiently visiting the couple at the nursing home.  Of course Allie couldnt recognize that its her family in front of her and trying to regain her from the disease. Her unknown husband would introduce to her their children as his family.  In response, Allie greeted them as if its an ordinary moment of meeting newly introduced visitors. Its in this very touching scene one can really feel the undying devotion of old Noah.  In spite of old age, in spite of memory loss, he remained to be her faithful husband.  Noah continuously tried to woo her back despite their childrens plea that their mother could no longer recognize them.  He continued to unfold their love story to her every detail hoping it would help her restore in her memory the undying love they have had for each other.

The Notebook narrated how a typical romance flowed from courtship to undying vows and devotion, marriage, aging and death.  Noah and Allie pledged their passion for each other for a lifetime love and commitment.  A promise that even the disease of having a dementia is completely not a hindrance in pursuing a loved one to come back.

The director won the audience by heart. This is a sentimental movie one of its kind.  It delivered the lessons of compassion between two committed individuals. It touches those who belong in this kind of sentimental journey, those who see themselves as Noah and Allie, and those who are as committed as the couple.
The notebook is the heart of Noah, it is the very core of his being where he kept all the memories of their love, their lifetime commitment that even in death, he would still be with her.

Nicolas Sparks wanted to show his readers that no matter what kind of notebook you have, its capable of providing someone love and devotion with all your heart. Every heart is capable of saving memories of romance even when war tried to grab its devotion from your very soul. The movie director, the writers and the characters delivered a well-blended element of a love story movie. The Notebook is indeed an outstanding piece of a sentimental journey of an undying love even right at the face of death, and it is a moving movie romance that inculcates in us the real meaning of love.

The Notebook is a worth reminiscing rendition of an ordinary storyline, yet worth of tears when touches our souls.  Truly, a meaningful deliverance of love in a sentimental journey.

The art of film making is guided by theoretical frameworks which underscore the approaches for cinematic techniques. Many theorists have asserted their positions as regards the angle upon which these cinematic techniques portend. The psychoanalytic school of thought, whose proponents include Munsterberg, has maintained that the film making process should border the precincts of the affective effects that the film has on the emotions and minds of viewers at large. On the other hand, the montage school of thought emphasizes on the editing aspect of the film. With regard to this, it is evident that film making thus makes cinema to be different from other forms of art such as theater. This paper seeks to evaluate the film Passion De Jeanne DArch using the montage theory and focusing on reality and effects of sound film all concisely constructed through film editing aspects of this film

The fundamental question that is intriguing in the whole concept of film making is what constitutes cinema. As there exists various theoretical dimensions onto what is cinema, the understanding built in this discussion forms the basis upon which Passion De Jeanne DArch will be evaluated. Accordingly, cinema is a theoretical conceptualization whose product is art. As a result, cinema takes many forms ranging from the industrially produced blockbuster to the handcrafted experimental work. Cinema gives us a psychoanalytic, humanist and formalist outlook because it continues to fascinate, inspire provoke, evolve and turn on. In light of this, cinema presents newer possibilities for experiencing, exploring as well as imagining the world we live in (Schrader, 1972 52-58).

The empirical filmic representation of the film Passion De Jeanne DArch, as argued by montage theory, explores the concept of intuitionist cinematic realism. According to Gottlieb (199478-82), Passion De Jeanne DArch would not have achieved its riveting and haunting portrait of the historical martyr without coherent editing techniques. Essentially, the film is edited to resemble some sort of a documentary with emphasis primarily laid on the series of courtroom examination that doomed the young warrior. Evidently, the film gloriously employs clear close-ups, to draw attention to the ordinariness while at the same time embellishing the ugliest qualities. For example, Maria Falconet is unforgettable as Joan. Perfectly editing the terror, pain and saint less required by what is arguably the most demanding role an actor can play (Gottlieb, 1994 84-89).It is plausible to reiterate that the editing of this film in respect to montage theory has brought about the wonderful visual motif that is able to balance between sensual reality with inspirational spirituality.
Passion De Jeanne DArch is regarded as a landmark of cinema especially because of its production and direction which borrowed widely from the principle of editing as guided by montage. In a more passionate and exciting way, the film is produced in such way that it manages to depict the trials, torture, imprisonment and executions of Joan of Arc. The camera work also stands out quite clearly in the film laying emphasis on the actors facial feature. With regard to this, the director shot a great deal of the film, producing a piece in a close up by making his actors to wear makeup. Evidently the effects of all this is to better the way of telling the story through expressions. Schrader (1972 65-69) argues that this is a choice which was made possible through the use of the recently developed panchromatic film, which facilitates effects of sound film in the overall editing thus recording skin tones in a naturalistic manner.

The vivid editing elements Passion De Jeanne DArch has been welcomed and praised for a true classical work of art. Accordingly, it uses both theory and aesthetics to appeal to and moves the audience with its beautiful simplicity. The style of this film which is called close ups, is gotten from the sources of the director and evokes the protocol of the trial. This close up technique of editing, gives the shattering impression on the ways in which the trial seemed as the conspiracy of the judges against lone Jeanne. According to Gottlieb (199479-85), this conspiracy could only be conveyed on the screen through a manifolds of close-ups that intermingle with merciless realism to depict the hypocritical compassions of the judges.

Significantly, the editing technique of Passion De Jeanne DArch lifts the drama in the film above a given place as well as a given time. The director and other literary critics find this technique of close up, a more satisfactory way of abstracting from a historically defined reality without necessarily abandoning respect fro realism and authenticity (Gottlieb, 1994 93-99). However, strives for timelessness is reflected in the entire film. It also paves way for Dreyer to use pans, tilts, travelling shots and intricate editing. There is also the use of cross cutting techniques to better the effects especially in the last part of film. For instance, the hectic rhythm and the swiftly changing shots towards the end of the film are evidences of a masterfully close up techniques of editing.

In addition, the visual language is deliberately complex and not in the least monotonous. In regard to this, the costumes and sets for Passion De Jeanne DArch were intentionally created and built in the film to purposely further the balance between historical and modern cinema. Furthermore the lighting as exemplified by the overall whiteness of the image is a great contribution to the emphasis o the film on the logical and simple.
Dramatically, the film Passion De Jeanne DArch is composed is a one long scene. It intensifies in two scenes which focus on the Jeannes struggle as well as battle for her life and soul. This dramatic demarcation is characterized to this film thus the first scene is when Jeanne mentally breaks down and signs a confession. On the other hand, the second scene captures the regrets of Jeanne over what she has done and hastily withdraws the confession. In light of this, this editing style makes the film to capture the intense descriptions of the suffering of the individual as well as the drama of the soul transformed into images. Edited in what is called realized mysticism, the film breaks the tradition of eliciting negative reactions from viewers because of its classification as a silent film. Ordinarily, such films are physically crumbling decomposing and vanishing.
In conclusion, the achievement of Passion De Jeanne DArch is realized in a pre-dialogue of the immense archive of not only cinematic and cultural history but also the irreplaceable precious pleasure. From the forgoing discussion, it is evident that the creative, innovative and startling camera works in the Passion De Jeanne DArch creates visual imbalance with the odd angle shots of the street performers and other actors exaggerate their physical features thus creating a strong sense of grotesque which in essence is an external manifestation of their innate inhumanity. This film is indeed a profound indelible cinema of perseverance and courage, conscience and spirituality and thereby relying heavily upon editing to achieve the nerve of cinema as well as its sociological significance.

Leni Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will, is not only a good example of a propaganda film but also provide insights on how the use of psychology can enhance the impact of a film. Riefenstahl, personally commissioned by Adolf Hitler to document the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, films speeches given by the National Socialist German Workers Party, better known as the Nazi Party, leaders and highlights its role in the restoration of Germany as an international power. Riefenstahl present the Nazis as a reincarnation of the German military power and leadership and characterizes Hitler as the True German Leader. Released in 1935 in London and Berlin, though the film was readily recognized as a propaganda material it was still able to achieve world acclaim particularly for its technical and cinematic value. It has since been considered as one of the earliest indications of the Nazi Partys political and military objective of world dominance.

Context of Film
Germany at this time had very significant economic problems. The cost of World War I and the lack of economic opportunities because of sanctions limited the opportunity for recovery. At the same time, morale was very low. There was a stigma of being a defeated nation. This was something that the Germans were not familiar with since it had previously been able to maintain its position as a power in continental Europe. Moreover, the political conflict among its leaders was seen to be another indication of the failure government. It suggested that political leaders who were kept in power by traditional politics were not responsive to the concerns for ordinary people. Thus, Germans were desperate for stronger leadership and a more effective government so that urgent social and political concerns could be addressed.

In another film, Blitzkrieg The Rise  Fall of the Third Reich, Germany was shown to be a country suffering significant decline even before the First World War. Its subsequent defeat and the intervening years to World War II gave rise to the  Nazi Party. Through very effective political maneuverings, the Nazis were able to accumulate significant power and representation in the German parliamentary by utilizing the German publics deep sense of disenfranchisement and negative perception of traditional and institutional politics. The Nazi ideology pointed out that the prevailing ideologies of the time have all failed the German public because they have not been effective in preventing abuse and misuse of power (Columbia River Entertainment). Essentially, it sought to position itself in an almost messianic light, Hitler being the personification of its ideology.

Psychological Dimensions
In Reifenstahls film, the Nazi Party is presented as highly organized, ideologically unified and had already garnered significant public support. The reality is that it was not yet able to achieve such  a level of organization or power. For non-Germans, this seemed to imply that the country was developing a more solid leadership that could restore the country as a leading political power in Europe. However, for Germans, it had more profound implications. Based from the psychological analyses developed by Mnsterberg and Langdale, the Germans, whose military defeat was closely associated with its political mechanisms, interpreted the film as an indication of the potential of recovering martial power and expansionism (37-38). This shows that a difference in psychological context can develop varying interpretations of the film. Because the film was watched in assemblies, often sponsored by the party itself, viewers were also affected by group think. It is said the Nazi Party would motivate the crowd with the film which reinforced its presentation of the Party.

Some have also suggested that if the German people did feel so marginalized in Europe, the Nazis would have not been able to generate the appeal that it had on the countrys middle and lower social economic levels which represented majority of the countrys people. It is easy enough to imagine the having been feeling so powerless for so long, the suggestion that they can be able to be more socially and politically recognized is really tempting. It meant that people could regain not only their sense of nationhood again but also their sense of self-worth. At the same time, because it was presented in film, there was a suggestion of legitimacy and technical innovation, something that also contributed to the regard for the Nazi Party (188-189). In another sense, because the films were also considered as form of entertainment, it could be distributed more freely. More, even if one criticized it, the criticism would not be directed against the Nazi Party and may be limited to the film. This gives the Nazis a protection against its detractors while it continuously enjoys the benefits of mass media which further enhances the potential for psychological impact of the film.

Films engage the imagination, allowing viewers to transcend their individual realities that can be very oppressive or highly limiting. At the same time, when people feel powerless, the idea of gaining power even if it only by association can becomes a powerful motivator. For many of the Germans before World War II, the Nazi Party that was presented in Triumph of the Will represented a hope that the country will be able again gain its prestige. In reflections of some Germans on how they became attracted to support the Nazi Party, they said that it seemed to them that the Party was the answer to Germans lack of nationhood and prestige after years of economic, social and political decline in Europe. They also said that even when they realized that the Party was not at all what it promised itself to be and they themselves became victim to it, there was still a sense that it was the only means by which Germany could again be a world power (Columbia River Entertainment). These reflections show just how much psychological impact films can have when they are able to get empathy from viewers by echoing individual concerns, feelings and hopes. Thus, though we now know that many of the imagery in Triumph of Will were not exactly true, it still has  a great emotional and psychological impact. Something that has been even greater because we know that the film gave the Nazis the power to start World War II.

The paper explores the link between the meaning of iconography in Andrei Rublev and the meaning of filmmaking in Andrei Tarkovskys creative life. The paper positions iconography as the direct reflection of pains and creative tortures of filmmaking. The paper confirms both iconography in Andrei Rublev and filmmaking for Andrei Tarkovsky as the difficult, painful, but vital instruments of their own moral and spiritual survival.

The Church possesses and uses a wealth of iconographic works, but in the history of iconography, the works of Andrei Rublev occupy a special place. Likewise, Andrei Tarkovskys movie Andrei Rublev is fairly regarded as one of the most sophisticated, most talented, and most complicated examples of the modern Russian filmmaking. The three and a half hours of philosophic journey through Andrei Rublevs life create a confusing and mostly dubious impression. On the one hand, Andrei Rublev is a talented representation of the Russian life from within. On the other hand, Andrei Rublev seeks to use the mystery of iconography as the reflection of the same mystery in filmmaking. In the context of Tarkovskys work and the role of iconography in it, it would be fair to assume that in Andrei Rublev, iconography stands out as the direct reflection of pains and creative tortures of filmmaking and positions filmmaking as a unique tool of exploring the enigmatic nature of the human being.

That Andrei Tarkovskys Andrei Rublev is included into the list of the most talented creations in the history of filmmaking is as natural as it is also obvious the three and a half hours of the painful journey through Andrei Rublevs life are equally difficult and fascinating. Not only do the viewers have to adjust to the way of thinking proposed by Tarkovsky, but they cannot but recognize the unusually peripheral role, which Andrei Rublev plays in Tarkovskys film about himself. Everything in the film is about the mystery of iconography, as well as about the mystery of filmmaking the long fluid stands and shots are used in a way that distracts the viewer from the central figure of Andrei Rublev and create an impression of Andrei Rublev being secondary to everything that takes place on the screen. The scene with the balloon, the scene with pagans, soldiers and mass slaughters  everything is shown through the prism of Andrei Rublevs impressions and eyes and as talented filmmakers use their movie creations to reflect, contemplate, and reconsider the reality, Andrei Rublev in Tarkovskys work successfully fulfills a function of the viewers eyes, which they can and are even recommended to use in the process of exploring the reality.

Needless to say, the art of iconography is as complex and painful, as the life itself. In icon is the ultimate product of pains and sufferings, through which Andrei Rublev is bound to go in his life. His decision to devote himself to silence is actually his search for redemption after killing a treason soldier that tries to rape Durochka. Whether redemption is the basic source of Tarkovskys inspiration is difficult to define, but it is obvious that both iconography and filmmaking seek to balance the negative and positive sides of human existence and to show reality as a complex enigma, which goes beyond simple definition of the good and the evil. In his movie, Tarkovsky never shows Andrei Rublev in the process of creating an icon nor is the viewer given a chance to witness the process of creating the film itself. As such, iconography in Andrei Rublev reflects the mystery of filmmaking and creates an impression of filmmaking being a sacred and secret procedure, available only to the most talented ones.

It is natural and even anticipated that iconography, although a sacred and mostly secret process, makes it possible for the audience to see the results of the long and painful iconographers work. Moreover, it is through his interaction with the environment, people, and his inner world, that a talented personality is given a unique opportunity and inspiration to create. Like Borishka succeeds in creating a wonderful bell, Andrei Rublev takes a decision to return to iconography and like his talented works survive centuries, Tarkovskys film is likely to remain one of the best and the most talented examples of film art. The epilogue which, in distinction from the movie itself, is an 8-minute-long colorful disposition signifies Rublevs icons transition to the colored eternity and positions Rublevs icons as the products of his long, painful, and sometimes unbearably difficult fight for the spiritual and moral survival. In this context, it would be fair to say that iconography for Andrei Rublev and filmmaking for Andrei Tarkovsky are equally painful, creative, and productive, and serve an effective tool of exploring the nature of the human being.

In the context of Andrei Tarkovskys Andrei Rublev, iconography stands out as a painfully creative process and an effective element of Andrei Rublevs journey through the depths of the human being. In the same way, filmmaking for Andrei Tarkovsky is the result of creative tortures and pains, through which a talented personality is bound to go in the process of investigating the enigmatic nature of life. That Tarkovsky never shows Andrei Rublev in the process of creating an icon positions both iconography and filmmaking as the two sacred and mostly secret processes, the products of which usually survive centuries. As such, it would be fair to assume that iconography in Andrei Rublev and filmmaking for Andrei Tarkovsky represent the two equally important dimensions of human existence and position both as long, painful, but inevitably necessary tools of ones moral and spiritual survival.

Coppola, born in  April 7th 1939, graduated the Hofstra University where he studied theatre. Afterwards he enrolled himself in the UCLA Film School and graduated with a M.F.A. in film directing. During his time at Hofstra he had written various plays and musicals for the performing students. While attending UCLA he had directed a number of shorts, including  the horror film The Two Christophers which was inspired by Edgar Allen Poes short story William Wilson. Francis had his most significant break when he became the apprentice of Z-movie filmmaker Roger Corman. After proving his worth in many of Cormans projects, Coppola was allowed to make his own project.

In 1963 he wrote, directed and produced with just a few thousand dollars and a crew of nine people, his first feature, Dementia 13. After graduation he started to grow in the eyes of the Warner Brothers and spent the next years working as a screenwriter. While making his way up in Hollywood, Coppola visualized a utopia for young filmmakers yearning for creative freedom in the making of their films. Coppola and his friend, George Lucas,  created American Zoetrope in San Francisco, California. Despite their united talent, their first production, in 1971, was a major box office disaster, albeit critically successful. With a budget of almost 800 thousand dollars the movie, THX 1138, only grossed 5,000 dollars in the US. After the enormous financial loss, Coppola needed employment. Paramount Pictures offered him the task to do an adaptation of Mario Puzos The Godfather. He, reluctantly, accepted the offer, mostly just because he needed money. This was, of course, a very good decision as The Godfather proved to be one masterpiece of a movie, being a success critically and financially. Coppola demanded creative power over the making of the film, and eventually got his own way of depicting the Mafia without disrespecting his Italian heritage.

Francis Ford Coppola finished shooting The Godfather in just seven days, having over 90 hours of footage. In his initial cut of the film he had it down to just a bit over two hours, but under the suggestion of the Vice President of production from Paramount, he re-edited, adding one extra hour to the film. This was the finishing touch to what would be later known as one of the best films ever made. The Godfather has a place for itself engraved for many years to come, in the film industry. Studied and analyzed by film students everywhere, The Godfather made the world see what Francis Ford Coppola has contributed to filmmaking, being only the first of many great films to be done by this promising, rising new director.

Not two years after the release of The Godfather, Coppola had given us its sequel The Godfather Part II. Wanting full creative power over the movie, he produced it himself. Unlike its predecessor this one took Coppola nine months to film, something he did all over the globe, from Sicily to the Dominican Republic and in the United States. Financial success was already expected, but this film surprised everyone with its unbelievable quality, making it probably the best sequel ever done, putting it in the same ranks as the first film. By this point, Coppolas name was gold. The Godfather Part I and Part II both won Oscars for Best Picture.

In the same year as The Godfather Part II, in 1974, Coppola also made another amazing film, which is also his most personal. The Conversation, inspired by his childhood passion of eavesdropping on his parents conversations, especially his attempts at finding out what he was going to receive for Christmas. Critically successful, the movie was amazingly received at the Cannes Festival, and was only outdone, by his other release of the year, the already mentioned Part II of The Godfather.

These three movies, and their amazing success, overshadowed Coppolas other releases which were very disappointing both financially and critically. His next movie was released in 1979, Apocalypse Now, a movie that was so grueling to everyone in production, taking up one year and a half to finish shooting instead of the scheduled six weeks. Francis was under such stress that he threatened to commit suicide and one of the main cast, Martin Sheen aged 36, suffered a heart attack. Apocalypse Now was amazingly successful and greatly received by critics and audience. The film had put Coppola through physical and emotional suffering, so much that he needed a break from war movies and violent gangster films which had made him famous. Thus, he took a new approach for his newest film, a romantic musical.

One From The Heart was released in 1982. Having enough of filming on location, he decided to do this project entirely in a studio. Coppola even added to the feel of the movie by filming it in 1.371 aspect ratio like in the 40s and 50s. Coppola hired Gene Kelly as technical advisor for the film. In the end, the movie production cost was severely high, the quality of the film low and was a major disappointment in all departments despite Coppolas serious attempt in making a musical. Following all his previous financial flops, the failure of One From The Heart severely crippled Coppolas bank account. In 1983 he took on another project The Outsiders based on the novel by Susie Hinton. Coppola didnt have enough money to pay Hinton, but he offered her a percentage of  the profits. Hinton had faith in Coppola and she agreed to let him make the film. Luckily, the movie did great at the box office. This movie was just what Coppola needed to get back on his feet. Following the success of this movie, Coppola did another Hinton adaptation, Rumble Fish, in the same year.  He started filming right after finishing The Outsiders.

Coppola chose a different touch on this film. Filmed in black and white with only two symbolic images presented in color, it was meant as an art film for kids. Unlike The Outsiders, this one was another flop. However thanks to the highly successful box office that The Outsiders received, American Zoetrope managed to live on. Becoming a major name in the film industry in the 70s, Coppola had a steady downfall in the 80s. He had strived to present new material with experimental techniques, but in the end he was left questioning his future in the movie business. Coppola was the third director behind Jonathan Demme and Penny Marshall to be involved with Peggy Sue Got Married, the title of which is lifted from a Buddy Holly song, but eventually he was thought to be the best choice for this project. Production started in 1985 and was finished eight weeks later. Trying to get his reputation back, Coppola kept the production under budget and time limits. Released in 1986, Peggy Sue Got Married was an instant hit, rumored to have surpassed its predecessor, and it was Coppolas best movie of that decade. Paramount Pictures had been trying to get Francis Ford Coppola to finish the Godfather Trilogy for years, but he was no longer interested in gangster movies. Mario Puzo had written scripts for a third installment twice, without success. Being tired of gangster movies, Coppola chose to spend the 80s and millions of dollars on experimental projects, bringing his visions to the big screen. Sadly, most of them were disasters that cost him a great amount of his money bringing him to increasing fear of bankruptcy and losing American Zoetrope. In 1990 he decided to return to the franchise that made him famous. Coppola had written and directed The Godfather Part III. The title Coppola gave to his film was originally The Death Of Michael Corleone but, despite his protest, the title was changed to its final form.Most of the significant cast and crew returned for the sequel, but the production was troubled. When the film was finally released to its overly eager public, it was generally well received. He gave his daughter Sofia, the role of Michael Corleones daughter. Her performance being heavily criticized, criticism that Coppola insists is misdirected towards him.Two years after its release, Coppola edited all three parts of the trilogy into a 583 minute epic which he released on video. He also re-released Apocalypse Now, years later after its theatrical run.Coppola often casts his real-life family members in his films. In the Godfather Trilogy, their characters relationships to Michael Corleone often paralleled their real-life relationship to Coppola. His sister, Talia Shire, played Michaels sister Connie, and his daughter, Sofia Coppola, had the role of Michaels daughter Mary who was named for Coppolas other daughter.

In 1992 Coppola made Bram Stokers Dracula. The film has its strengths and its weaknesses. Of its strengths, the most impressive is Coppolas use of complimentary old and new filmmaking technologies. In homage to vintage vampire films like Nosferatu (1922) and Dracula (1931), Coppola used many of the techniques popular in the early years of filmmaking (for example using irises to cut from one scene to the next) and even used an old Path camera to shoot some footage. And then seamlessly tied in are some of the most cutting edge special effects and make-up technologies available. On top of that youve got beautiful period costumes and sets that add to the amazing visuals of the picture. The film made over eighty million dollars in its US theatrical run and much more abroad. Coppola now had two consecutive hits with this and The Godfather Part III. This brought Zoetrope back in business. Since he first started directing up until the present day, he has done 32 films in total. In the 2000s he has not been as active making only 3 movies in 10 years. Although his skills have not faded and we can still see Coppola in his new films, in each he gives us his own vision. In 2007 he made a film adaptation of Romanian writer Mircea Eliades novel Youth Without Youth after he received the book, read it and liked the story, he decided he wanted to put it on the big screen. Francis Ford Coppola is and will be one of the greatest directors the film industry will ever have, opening eyes to everyone who sees his films, his talent remarkably distinct. His latest movie Tetro was released in 2009, greatly received by audiences and critics.

The Godfather films are personal. And they are, even though our family were never gangsters, and we only heard about somebody who knew a gangster. But still, the real day-to-day reality of the Italian family that was put into the gangster film was based on my family and what I remember as a kid. You cant make films without them being personal to some extent.

I think Tetro is the most beautiful film Ive ever done in terms of how it was made. I dont know what people will make of the picture, but just the filmmaking part of it, Ive learnt to put it together beautifully.- Francis Ford Coppola.