Detour and the Anti-Hero

Tom Neal: moping as hard as he can for the entire film.

Detour (1945) is a film noir about a guy who gets caught up in a very unfortunate instance: he is the only witness to a mysterious death of another man, and could easily be framed for murdering him.  His solution?  Run away from town to a larger city where no one knows him!  And pick up a feisty, ridiculously bossy femme fatale on the way!

The main character of Detour is undoubtedly an anti-hero, yet he is portrayed in a different way than most modern anti-heroes.  Nowadays, anti-heroes are more glorified in some way; they often have a tragic back-story and yet seem to remain strong through their smart-wit and "total badassery", which is usually what wins over the audience (think of the Dark Knight films, or just Batman in general). 

But here in Detour, the anti-hero is portrayed in a rather pathetic light.  The film really emphasizes the fact that the audience should feel sorry for this character, especially since he was not responsible for the other man's death, and he was technically tricked by Vera (the femme fatale mentioned above) into accidentally killing her.  He is also completely pushed around by her throughout the film.  Seeing a male character pushed around by a female character, especially in the forties and fifties, is a relatively uncommon thing that occurs in film. 

This anti-hero is depicted as meek and helpless, which are traits not normally associated with a "hero", yet also differ from the modern anti-hero.

Is Tod Browning's Freaks a Horror Film?

While Freaks (1932; depicted left) is not anywhere near the same kind of film as Nightmare on Elm Street or Hellraiser, it still qualifies as a horror film.  It is a...different kind of horror.

From what I understood, the intent of the film was to show that "ugliness" and "freakishness" comes from the inside, regardless of one's outer appearance.  This is explicitly shown via the beautiful Cleopatra's mistreatment of the dwarf Hans, who is considered a "freak".

However, the course of the story reveals a different side to that moral.  Bringing in some spoilers, at the end of Freaks, Cleopatra gets mutilated by the "freaks" as an act of revenge, thus becoming one of them.  While that may read to some as, "Her inner monstrosity has shone through," what does that say of the other "freaks"?  Did they really have to act with violence and cruelty?  To me, the ending reads as, "We all have a monster inside us; some just wear the monstrosity like a badge", making the film a pretty cynical one.

For those who have not seen this movie: they are staring at his third arm.

Films like this can also cause the audience to react with "monstrosity"; I caught myself enjoying the fact that Cleopatra "got what was coming to her".  Freaks is similar to films such as The Dark Backward (1991; depicted right) and The Devil's Carnival (2012), in which the audience sympathizes with the underdog protagonist and eventually feel the effects of the negativity that is aimed at said character.  The audience then responds with such intense animosity towards any other characters that are cruel or violent towards the protagonist.  Personally, I think that a film that can bring that kind of attitude out of an audience is definitely "horrifying".  What are your thoughts?

Sherlock Jr. and Visual Stunts and Gags

Sherlock Jr. (1924) is a short film, starring Buster Keaton, about a young man who works at a cinema but is also studying to be a detective.  The initial thing that got me in the introduction of the film was the moral which, in short, was, "Don't try to do two things at once, you won't do either of them any justice."  Story of my life right there.


Sherlock Jr., being a "silent film," relies heavily on visual gags and stunts in order to carry the plot along or tell a joke.  Many of these gags rely on situations that are so ridiculous and exaggerated that the audience cannot believe (in a sense) that they are happening, creating a sort of situational irony. One of these is the scene where Keaton's character is running on top of a moving train, only to jump onto a water pump and accidentally pull it down causing the water to pour out as a massive waterfall onto him.  Firstly, running on top of a train: who would do that?!  The fact that Keaton's character even got himself into such a situation is ridiculous and hilarious in itself.  What makes it funnier is that his escape form the train only resulted in more bad luck: being under a mass of moving water.  It is not that he got wet, however, it is because the water pump seemed painful.

A lot of comedy relies on violence as well, especially in modern day comedies, be them films or television shows or cartoons.  In Sherlock Jr., many of the gag situations also pose a physical, violent threat to the characters, such as the falling axe trap that activates when one sits on the chair below it.  There is something about (mostly non-fatal) physical humor that instantly hits most audiences' funny bones.  I personally think that it is because, as a rule of comedy, something needs to be thrown under the bus, be it literally or metaphorically.

Introduction for Going to the Movies: 20th Century Film

Hello, I'm Janusia Figueiredo.  If my name is too much for you, I also go by "Janee" (it's pronounced like "Johnny", but with a French-like rolled J).  Some people know me, most don't.  Here's what I generally look like:

So gorgeous, I should be a Victoria's Secret model.

I'm a third-year Fine Arts major at DAAP, at the University of Cincinnati.  I currently commute from home and work at Macy's up at the Kenwood mall.  My general interests include anime and manga, Western comics and cartoons, music, video games, and of course...films.

I'd like to think that I have a broad interest in films; the ones I like range from Tim Buton's The Nightmare Before Christmas (which, arguably, is my absolute favorite movie), to Better Off Dead (with John Cusack), to Pedro Almodovar's Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown.  I have yet to see any "classics" such as Citizen Kane or The Godfather, and I really want to see them.  At least, before I die.

I'm taking the Going to the Movies Spring 2014 class because, even though I like movies, I don't really know much about them.  I want to learn more about camera techniques, visual effects and screenplay writing.  I'm pretty sure I'll get that out of this class.