"Y Tu Mamá También," by Alfonso Cuarón

             

Y Tu Mama También, could be miss-categorized as an extremely uncensored and vulgar film given the great amount of nudity and sex talk. However, the social and political under-layers make it an extremely intricate and more profound movie than a simple ‘coming to age’ chick flick. The hints and details of the political, economical, and social reality of Mexico are given with a subtle and elegant touch, unlike most of the visuals and dialogues. For example, in many occasions, maids are the connecting thread between places and stories. Their silent present keeps everything organized so that their patrons can enjoy their parties and way of life. In this aspect, it reminded me of Chinatown, where Asian employees are always in the background, silently keeping everything clean and spotless.

Alfonso Cuarón took a snap shot of Latin America in this film. We see Tenoch and Julio strolling through the streets of Mexico with the common blindness that most medium to high class Latin Americans have. They are so caught up talking about futile things such as their manifesto or who had sex with more girls, that they don’t even notice the police trucks with long rifles stopping and searching locals, or the various crosses along the street. Nevertheless, the audience is able to build and piece together the political and economic realities of other social classes thanks to the autonomous camera. The camera becoming an extra character with it’s own point of view. It is inquisitive and curious; it tries to catch glances of the not so glamorous realities of this country.

            Cuaron was also great at depicting certain elements that are core to the Mexican culture: death. Death is celebrated and remembered with intrinsic rituals. Tenoch and Julio’s road trip is delineated by the presence of death. They pass through many crosses in the street, which are altars for people who have died on the road. The voice over tends to bring the audience’s attention to these details.

            In fact, the voice over was used in a masterful way. Even though at times is expository, it never becomes redundant or unnecessary. The reason it works so well is that it stimulates the imagination of the audience. For example, at one point, the camera is showing the road ahead of the car and the voice over relates what they (and we) would have seen in this same spot 5 years ago. The description gives away the perfect amount of details to let the audience imagine and see these images. This technique produces a stronger emotional reaction than if it was simply shown. 

"Duck Soup," by The Marx Brothers

          

         Given the fact that Duck Soup was one of the first ‘talky’ films, we can see an incredible step back in terms of camera, acting, and story telling. First of all, the camera is extremely static: most shots are long and wide. Acting, on the other hand, is extremely expository and extravagant. The actors and screenwriters felt the need to talk through and explain every bit of emotion instead of showing it. Nevertheless, it was interesting that, in the beginning of the film, the main character talks directly into the camera. Not only he brakes the forth wall by talking directly to the audience, but he also makes the camera visible. We are suddenly aware that there is a recording instrument in the living room.

In terms of sound, the Four Marx Brothers, like Chaplin, played with the use of accents and modes of speech to differentiate society’s stratus and ridicule the upper classes. The rich people are the only ones who burst into absurd sequences of musicals when needing to express a sentiment. It seems like the Four Marx Brothers tried to use every single excuse to integrate unnecessary sounds to the film. For example, there are trumpets that follow the main character which are unmotivated. This film is a great example to showcase the beauty behind controlling and restricting the instruments our disposal. The fact that they created scenes and characters only because of their sonic qualities, do not have a rooted enough motivation. Therefore, these scenes become extremely annoying and unwatchable. 

"The Great Train Robbery," by Edwin S. Porter

In the case of The Great Train Robbery, Edwin S. Porter makes a commentary about society with a  serious and paternalistic approach. By precluding the audiences from a heroic figure, Porter creates in the audience a starving desire for an authoritarian figure. Another interesting aspect about The Great Train Robbery is that this film was a pioneer in many aspects: camera movement, editing, acting, and story. In terms of camera movements and editing, Porter used continuity editing, parallel editing, and camera movements such as panning. In terms of acting and story telling, there is no introduction or exposition of the facts. The audience is taken right away in the middle of the action. In addition, not only this was the first film in which a man looks right into the camera and shoots ‘at the audience,’ but it was also the first film in which people die in front of the camera. I would be very interested to know how the audiences reacted to such a film. 

'The Immigrant,' and 'The Pawnshop,' by Charlie Chaplin

In the films The Immigrant and The Pawnshop, Chaplin works in the other end of the spectrum by interpreting the role of a man who is part of the lower classes. In both of these movies, the camera is truthful to Chaplin’s point of view, creating a disputable empathy with the main character. The audience cheers for him to find the way of paying the bill, getting the girl, and saving the day. In addition, these stories create kinetic satisfaction for the audiences. Finally, the low stratus of society is the smartest one: they are the ones fooling authority and saving the day.   

"ONE AM," by Charlie Chaplin

 Charlie Chaplin is known for using slapstick comedy to comment on society and ridicule bourgeoisie. For instance, in One AM, Chaplin embodies an intoxicated wealthy man who is completely ridiculed by his fancy and expensive furniture. Apart from the obvious fact that the man is drunk and can barely walk straight, Chaplin uses mise-en-scene to dig deeper in social commentaries. The whole film revolves around the fact that the objects filling his house plot against him. He is ridiculed by his own wealth. In addition, his house looks like a theater stage. Even though the stage might have been conceived for practical purposes, the fact that Chaplin decided to show it instead of creating the illusion of a real house expresses a deeper meaning and subtext to the film. It comments on the fact that this stratus of society is always acting on a stage, they are not real and do not have real feelings and problems. This might also have been the reason why Chaplin decided to strip his character from human relationships. Although he is wealthy, he does not have a family and lives alone in such a big house. Another interesting aspect developed by Chaplin in this film though the camera work, is the fact that he creates distance between the audience and the main character. The audience is not drowned into the life of the character and therefore there is no empathy towards him.