This source is of particular interest to the paper because it was written at the time of the films release. This is the original New York Times movie review that the makers of Casablanca were anxiously awaiting on November 7th 1942. Michael Curtiz and company certainly had nothing to worried about as Bosley Crowther gave the film a rave review and hailed it as “one of the year’s most exciting and trenchant films.” Crowther awards Casablanca for its flawless combination of sentiment, humor, and sorrow to create a film that is both entertaining and inspiring. The review also comments on the film’s underlying political message, particularly in Humphrey Bogart’s performance as Rick Blaine. Crowther states that the film uses Bogart’s role “to inject a cold point of tough resistance to evil forces afoot in Europe today.” This statement is so telling because it reflects the reaction of audiences during the actual time of the film’s debut; it shows that the film was viewed as a vehicle for propaganda to communicate support of the war effort and a fight against fascism. This review is extremely insightful because it puts the movie into its historical context by lending us the perspective of a movie critic of that specific time period.
Peary’s analysis of Casablanca as a cult movie would add to the argument of my paper because it shows the universal appeal of the film and the ideas that it represents. The notion of being in a ‘limbo stage’, having to choose between personal interests and the betterment of something larger than us, is not exclusive to Rick or this film; it is a universal battle that we grapple with in our everyday lives, not only in times of war. In addition, Peary’s examination of Rick’s evolution as a character would be helpful when concentrating on the characterization of Rick as a reflection of how American sensibility should be during WWII; through his character, the film makes clear that neutrality, indifference, and uninvolvement are not acceptable.
tagged cult movie by shnayd ...on 02-DEC-08
Schneider, Irving, M.D. "The Theory and Practice of Movie Psychiatry." The American Journal of Psychiatry 144.8 (1987): 996-1002. This article explores the depiction of psychiatry in the movie and how it has been a source of concern to many in the profession over the years. They feel that a false picture of the work of a psychiatrist has been illustrated to the public. In fact, psychiatry in the movies has developed its own characteristics, which only occasionally intersect with those of the real-life profession. In this paper, Schneider outlines theories of the invented profession of movie psychiatry.
"I'll explain to you about dreams so you don't think it is hooey. The secret of who you are and what has made you run away from yourself-these secrets are buried in your brain, but you don't want to look at them. The human being very often doesn't want to know the truth about himself because he thinks it will make him sick; so he makes himself sicker trying to forget. You follow me?... Here's where dreams come in. They tell you what you are trying to hide, but they tell it to you all mixed up like pieces of a puzzle that don't fit. The problem of the analyst is to examine this puzzle and put the pieces together in the right place and find out what the devil you are trying to say to yourself."
The above quote from the movie by Dr. Alex (addressed to Ballentine), shows how method of criminal detection and psychoanalytic method are related. The truth behind Edwardes murder is buried beneath an accumulation of alibis, false tracks, confusing recollections, and the analyst-detective patiently tries to get to the bottom of the case. Throughout the history of film, the psychoanalyst has been a solver of mysteries, often criminal mysteries, as the murder in Spellbound, but just as often personal ones.
The movie industry has very little choice but to adapt its current business model due to the invent of new technologies. The video rental sector has experienced significant remodeling due to digitization. In reference to video-on-demand the author states, "not since the introduction of the videocassette recorder has a disruptive technology so threatened the very heart of Hollywood." Blockbuster and Hollywood see these innovations as a threat to their rental revenues. The article focuses on how the Internet will affect the value chain of the motion picture industry. The author cites broadband Internet connection, digital file compression, streaming media, and encryption as the new technologies that have made these new online and VOD capabilities possible. He continues first by explaining how digital cable network and VOD systems work and then breaks down the logistics of the movie industry's production and distribution models.
The article goes on to describe how the industry will change from digitization. In production, digitally produced movies will cost less by eliminating the need for expensive film stocks. Computers can be used to edit and assemble digital movies rather than "splicing together the actual film stock." In distribution, digital projection systems will be installed in theater and online streaming videos will become the popular channel for distribution and duplication costs will be nearly obsolete. As for the middlemen, film manufacturers, processors, and duplicators will be reduced and distributors and video rental stores may be eliminated. Movie theaters will also be affected because VOD systems will entice viewers to stay at home. Theaters will be force to add "valuable social experience" and show only movies they know will be profitable. As of now video rental stores aren't afraid of VOD, but the author suggests down the road they may have to "partner with a firm that owns distribution technologies but lacks customer base.
These hypotheses have sufficient data to support them and may be realistic adaptions to the industry. Although not in current practice, it is important to think about the future of the industry. My paper will examine how many of these sectors have changed and how they will continue to evolve.
This article analyzes the preventative measures the movie industry must take in order to protect their copyrights and stifle piracy. It is made clear that various factors, particularly the invent of broadband Internet, peer-to-peer networks, and improvements in video compression technologies have made such efforts extremely difficult. Thus the industry must exercise legal and technical means to battle competing markets. The entertainment industry is aiming to hold the information industry accountable for all copyright violations. Furthermore, they are urging the information industry to also institute anti-piracy technologies in all software and hardware. By elaborating on the previous legal battles that complicate the debate on whether to hold the user or manufacturer accountable for piracy, the authors device a better solution that assigning blame. The article suggests that the movie industry should adapt their supply chain to provide cheaper, quality, convenient products than any illegal form could offer.
This new model would force the industry to reconstruct how they distribute, exhibit, and produce films. The second section delineates the current framework of the industry tracing back to the 1970s. The weaknesses are exposed and the industry's long-term "techo-phobia" is identified as a major culprit. The next section brings attention to the legal battles of the MPAA and the RIAA to protect copyrights and further discusses the benefits and setbacks of the DMCA. Two organizations have been assembled to try and deal with these problems; one is the Digital Media Device Association and the other is Project Hudson, which is made up of technology giants such as Samsung, Toshiba, and Nokia. Various solutions are proposed, such as digital watermarking and smart-card technology, but all have flaws. Because neither legal nor technological solutions effectively can eliminate piracy, the most sensible answer is economically based. In terms of distribution, the article suggests creating e-Blockbusters near ISPs, which would enable consumers to rent movies in a cheap and accessible manner. For exhibition, theaters must adapt by adjusting the "window scheme, offering differentiated digital viewing experiences, and developing fast-access storage to reduce portable media." Production will take on a purely digital form, reducing the need for human interaction almost completely.
There are plenty of viable options available to improve and sustain the movie industry; it is just a matter or time and technology. The aforementioned solutions can improve the industry and successfully eliminate piracy if executed effectively. The article articulates my very thesis and attempts to provide an answer as to how the movie industry can change to this digitally advancing world.
The U.S. film industry has always been able to do better than other industries during bad economic times. Films offer audiences an escape from the misfortunes of reality, so people turn to theatres when life is not going very well. In the 70’s there was a special situation where the collective world economy was doing quite poorly. This was mainly because of the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 and stagflation. Hollywood still had the major share in the international film industry and had to come up with a new way to keep audiences in theatres, especially after the decline of the studio system. Hollywood fought these economic troubles with the modern day Hollywood blockbuster. Superman helped to keep attracted multitudes because the storyline and special effects were so powerful they made one forget about real life. Rather, movie goers gained hope and were captivated by the magic that was going on before their eyes. By gaining more than 300 million dollars in international revenues, Superman showed Hollywood that a movie like it was always going to be the most successfully, especially since it did so well during a world economic recession.
Bosley Crowther was a film critic for the New York Times. He is one of the first critics to call Citizen Kane the best movie of all time.
Crowther wrote a glowing review of Citizen Kane on May 2nd, 1941, the day after the premiere in New York. He was so impressed with the film that four days after the premiere, he wrote in this article that Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane could be the greatest movie of all time. He conceded that he might have been going out on a limb and that the felt slightly uneasy about this bold declaration, but that he knew that the film was vastly superior to average film of the day. He wrote that because the film maker was so young – only 25 –he was not sure how the future would fare for Welles. He commented about the movie’s hyped-up release and stated that at the premiere, the film was “riding the crest of the most provocative publicity wave ever to float a motion picture.” This wave of publicity was caused by Hearst’s insistence that the film be taken off of the market before it was even released. Crowther wrote about the viewers reactions to the portrayal of the media tycoon. Even though not a single “black mark” is made against the character, the audience still walked away with a vague idea of the rash techniques used by ruthless publishers. This juxtaposes the films portrayal of Kane as an honest publisher. Crowther then wrote about the ending of the film and how he felt that it increased the complexity of the film because the ending didn’t explain itself. He was of the opinion that Welles was a brilliant filmmaker, but because he was so young, he would need more experience in the discipline.
This article is groundbreaking with respect to the fact that it is one of the first to hail Welles’s movie as a masterpiece and one of the greatest movies ever made. In the years after the film, its popularity waned at first but then began to increase with time. When one looks today at various organization’s rankings of the best movies of all time (eg Time, AFI, IMDB), usually Citizen Kane tops the list. One might think that Crowther’s positive reviews of the film would inspire more viewership, however the film was not a blockbuster and it seems that Hearst’s attempts at suppressing it were effective.
This article by a LA Times correspondent, written on May 9, 1941, documents the west coast premiere of Orson Welles’s famous film Citizen Kane. Kendall reports that the premiere of Citizen Kane is held at the famous El Capitan Theater, a Hollywood landmark stage theater. The author describes a nostalgic feeling of “the old days” of Hollywood amid spot lights which pierced the sky in front of thousands of fans gathered – much in today’s fashion – to see their favorite stars. The glitz and glamour seems to add to Welles’s ego as he walks down the red carpet, his entrance timed. The crowds make even more noise for Barrymore as he walks into the theater. When stopped for questioning on the red carpet, Welles makes only one remark – about his gratefulness to George Schaefer, the president of RIO-Radio Pictures. “If it had not been for George J. Schaefer there would not be a Citizen Kane.” Outside the theater, the star-struck crowd for the premiere is so large that RKO had to erect temporary bleachers. The article then extensively lists the famous attendees, including Mickey Rooney, Ronald Reagan and Bob Hope. Kendall also includes a photograph of the “stellar foursome” including John Barrymore, Dolores Del Rio, Orson Welles, and Dorothy Comingore.
This article is a fantastic first hand account of the media and popular frenzy surrounding the grand release of RKO’s Citizen Kane. The movie premiered at the famous El Capitan Theater and was the first movie to be shown at that location. The theater remains a landmark to this day on the Hollywood strip. This article clearly shows that despite Hearst’s best efforts to suppress the film’s release, these attempts only furthered to publicize the movie and create even more attention for the premiere. Hearst did succeed in limiting the films success and it wasn’t for many years that interest in the film was revived. This article also, interestingly enough, reveals that as early as 1941, Hollywood felt a sense of nostalgia for the good-old-days of past. It is interesting to see these feelings manifest at such an early date, especially because today we consider Hollywood’s Golden Age to encompass the 1920s through the late 1950s.
Call#: Van Pelt Video Collection; ask at Circulation Desk. DVD PS3521.A47 G562 2000