THE COLOR OF PARADISE

BY CONOR HILTON

The Color of Paradise is an Iranian film that exemplifies the best in Iranian cinema. The film won numerous international critic’s awards and has been called a ‘masterpiece’ (2). Freedom has long fascinated human kind and is often strived for by characters that we all know. As American’s, freedom may too often be associated with a revolution and acts of violence, when it can be more of a state of being, unrelated to physical condition. The Color of Paradise explores the theme of freedom through contrast of father and son, symbolism, and the use of sound.

The contrast of widowed father and sightless son throughout the film examines the theme of freedom. The son Mohammad, who is blind, while physically imprisoned is free in heart, in contrast to his father, who has no physical handicap and would be considered by society to be free, whose heart is bound. Mohammad is unable to see anything but has a positive attitude towards life. He is on break from a boarding school for the blind, but attends school with his sister. He reads the lesson better than the other children do, showing that he has freedom of knowledge and learning. The father shows no love for anything in life and only works. He arrives late to pick up Mohammad from school, leaving him waiting long past the other children. Later they stop at a beach and the father ties Mohammad to a stick so he won’t fall in the ocean, while he sits on a rock smoking a cigarette. The carelessness the father shows towards Mohammad is also shown in almost everything the father does. The boy’s blindness furthers the point that freedom goes beyond physically being able to do things. His father is perfectly capable of doing whatever he desires, but is restricted because of his narrow focus on material things. The father ignores his mother and children as he seeks a new wife. He focuses entirely on himself while Mohammad looks to others first. While in the field with his grandmother, Mohammad grabs her hands and tells her they are beautiful and white- when in reality they are calloused and covered in dirt. Mohammad sees past the physical appearance, to the truth within.

Symbolism is used throughout the film, but two main symbols are the most effective in conveying the ideal of freedom. The symbol of the bird is prevalent throughout the movie. Near the beginning of the film, Mohammad is exploring a forest and hears the cry of a baby bird. The bird had fallen from its nest, where Mohammad returns it. The baby bird symbolizes Mohammad’s journey throughout the film. He is currently helpless but sees more than others and will eventually return home, to heaven, and reach true freedom. As Mohammad’s grandmother dies two symbols are present, white light and birds. The birds symbolize the freedom she is achieving that she didn’t have in life, while the light represents the peace associated with the completion of a fulfilling life and the departure for heaven. These symbols reappear at the end of the film as Mohammad’s father holds his dying body. A flock of birds flies overhead showing that Mohammad is finally free from the prison of his blind body. A bright light also rests on Mohammad’s hand showing once again death and heaven. Mohammad has left this world becoming truly free and reaching peace.

Sound is used extensively throughout the film to add to the theme. Little music is present to evoke emotions in the viewer, this task being left almost entirely up to the sounds of nature. The sound of the birds is also representative of freedom as their cry is heard before they are visualized, also showing that freedom is heard and coming before it actually arrives. The sound of freedom can also be more motivating than the actual sight, as it is the sound of the bird that draws Mohammad, not the sight. At the end of the movie as Mohammad’s father stands on the bridge, the sound of rushing water is overwhelming, as are his feelings and confusion. The father does not know whether he should save his son and is struggling within. Throughout the film the father is associated with loud noises, an ax chopping wood, a bus driving, rushing water, etc. These harsh sounds are also caused, to some extent, by man adding another layer to the symbolism of sound. The manmade noises represent attachment to materials, again showing how the father is bound to the things of the world. Whereas Mohammad is associated with quiet peaceful sounds like the chirping of birds or crickets, representing the peace that Mohammad has. These peaceful sounds are also naturally occurring representing Mohammad’s freedom from material things in sharp contrast with that of his father. Sound adds to the texture of the film and the theme of freedom that is being conveyed.

I was moved by the film. I appreciated the difference from Hollywood blockbuster fare and the focus on the characters, as well as the symbolism contained within. New things became apparent to me that I had not noticed before and I had an increased appreciation of the gift of sight as well as awareness of sound. The film is honest in it’s portrayal of life’s horrors. Nothing is sweetened for the audience’s protection, helping the integrity of the message. I have gained a deeper understanding of what freedom actually is from the discoveries of the characters in the film. Any physical or emotional limitations are not relevant to achieving true freedom. The movie showed that sometimes those who have it the worst are actually the best off, something that I knew, but didn’t fully appreciate until I watched the film. The Color of Paradise proves that freedom is unrelated to our physical condition, but rather a state of mind.

PSYCHO

BY MATT ROSE

Psycho has been called the “the first psychoanalytical thriller” (Kaganski). and received mixed reviews when it premiered in 1960. Now however, it is considered to be Hitchcock’s greatest film (The 100 Greatest Movies of All Time), even going so far as to have spawned two sequels, a prequel, and even a T.V. spinoff series (imdb.com). Based off a book inspired by actual events, the film seems plausible enough to happen to anyone.

I loved watching Psycho in a theater. The electric atmosphere intoxicated me even farther as I slipped into Hitchcock’s world. The laughter and screams magnified as they jumped from person to person around the room, as the audience added their own little soundtrack to go along with the macabre instrumentals of the movie.

Walking in, I had no idea what to expect. I had previously heard bits and pieces about the movie, but I had no idea when those pieces would come into play. I knew the shower scene from many allusions, yet I still jumped as the figure rushed in with a knife. Hitchcock played the tension really well in this movie. Knowing something would happen couldn’t protect you from all the side tangents Hitchcock implied.

At first, the situation just seems like a crazy, jealous, controlling mother trying to protect her son. The plot gets more complicated when we find out that the mother died 10 years ago. Instantly, little theories jumped into my mind. I had seen the mother stabbing the girl, I had seen her! But this theory only left that Norman Bates had killed some other girl to fill his mother’s tomb. I was convinced at this time that Norman was a good person (he had appeared so sweet when first introduced on-screen), but maybe he was a little crazy about his devotion to his mother.

Norman’s sweetness slowly slipped throughout the movie, foremost with his amusing little hobby of killing birds and stuffing their carcasses. While I have known some people who stuffed big game they hunted, the thought of killing and stuffing animals simply for boredoms sake struck me as odd. I started wondering how to know we can trust people. We’re told to never judge a book by its cover, which certainly would be good in this case, yet if we wait to see what’s on the inside of a tiger, we may just end up finding out.  So when my instincts started ringing warning bells about the stuffing of the animals, the best thing would have been to lock the door, and sleep (or shower) with one eye open.

The best tragedies are the ones with characters we could connect to, and I think this is what made Psycho so wonderful. We could see this plot happening to a love one, or even ourselves, and it terrified us.

12 ANGRY MEN

BY MCKAY DAINES

12 Angry Men, a film by Sidney Lumet, is a “penetrating, sensitive and sometimes shocking dissection of the hearts and minds of men who obviously are something less than gods” (Weiler).  As well as being his directorial debut, the film was the first in a long line of penetrating, controversial films by Lumet, and is currently in the top 25 movies of all time (Ebert).  Despite keeping the film set in a single room, Lumet controls the mood of the movie through masterful use of cinema tools and directorial skill; better than movies that have whole galaxies and millions of dollars with which to set the tone.  The general message of the film is one of success, and the power of morality – essentially, the power of the individual human spirit.  In the beginning, these values are easily seen.  However, as the film develops, the message gradually mutates into a cynical display of mob mentality – how people will first rashly decide their answers to a life-or-death situation, then change these decisions based not on evidence or personal conviction, but on an impulse to avoid standing out from the rest of the herd.

Sidney Lumet’s first work as lead director is one of the clearest and most masterful uses of camera angles and lenses, scenery, and progression that I have seen.  The film is the story of a twelve-man jury deliberating the case of an eighteen-year old boy who is accused of murdering his father.  Aside from an opening and concluding scene with the court, and a single view of the accused, the whole movie takes place in a single room.  The jury initially vote guilty by a count of eleven to one, and eventually change their vote to not guilty.  The genius of the movie comes not from the trial; in fact, we never know if the accused is guilty or not.  Lumet’s mastery lies in his depicting of the jury and how he gradually shows us their true colors, dropping pretenses and civility.   He does a world-class job of using camera lenses, scenery, and even costumes to show the passage of time and to increase tension.  By changing the focal length of the lenses used as the movie developed, he caused the background to “shrink” – increasing tension and a feeling of claustrophobia.  In addition to the focal length, he shot the movie in thirds – the first third above eye level, the second at eye level, and the third below eye level, increasing the levels of tension felt (Ebert).  The jury room table becomes increasingly cluttered as  deliberation drags on and the characters, increasingly disheveled.  Lumet  uses the table as both a barrier and a tool of unification.  By placing the table between arguing jury members, or placing two agreeing jurors behind it, he effectively uses it to shift allegiances and update arguments throughout the film.  In addition, the table facilitates a one-sided perspective while an argument against a juror is heard but not seen. These tools add to the general tension of the scene, the gradual wearing down of societal guidelines and revealing the true nature of each member of the jury.

This film is undeniably a masterful work of art, and is one of my personal favorites.  The entire cast of the movie deliver moving and accurate performances – they become the characters they appear to be.  Lumet had a two-week long rehearsal of the entire film before even beginning filming, adding a depth to characters and emotions that is rarely seen in films (IMDB).  The cinematographical genius, compelling story, gripping acting, and unique setting all make this movie belong in the lists of the greatest films created.

While I love the film, and consider it a masterpiece, I feel that its central message is not one of individual accomplishment and moral victory, as is traditionally argued.  Henry Fonda plays the lone juror that feels there is enough doubt to at least seriously consider the choice placed before them.  Although his urging is quickly ridiculed and decried, a fellow juror changes his mind in the following vote.  This cycle is repeated with varying intensity until the verdict of not guilty is reached.  It is the speed of this cycle that leads me to an alternate meaning.  At first, the jury is nearly unified in their decision on the fate of the eighteen-year old.  At a certain point in the vote – near an even split – the rate of change picks up dramatically.  The characters display blatant personal prejudices, vindictive voting, and other demeaning personal traits as the deliberation rolls on.  Many who have seen this movie view this scene as a breakdown of injustice, and the beginning of honest deliberation from the jury.  I, however, see it as the ugly display of the human tendency to make snap decisions and to agree with the group in power.  There are exceptions to every rule, and this movie is no exception. The whole confrontation is brought about by one man’s personal conviction or stubbornness.  But on a whole, the film pulls back the curtain on society’s mirror and reminds us that, in spite of our noble pretensions, we will discard our personal convictions and opinions if the majority demands it.