Westword (1973) - Michael Crichton

Out of curiosity I watched the original Westword, to sum up the movie in a sentence: it is a crossover between Jurassic Park and Terminator. The attraction park has gone wrong and a robot tries to kill you no matter what. 

Honestly I am really disappointed (story wise). Even Westword has seemingly touched the subject of morality, sadly it didn’t translate as much as it was expected. Since when did we set rules on how we treat robots or machines? The main protagonist questions his behaviour in the park, maybe it has something to do with how immoral to hurt and kill the robots but I think it is more about self assuring. Killing machines which basically act and even die like a human can be read as human wanted what they were forbidden. The need of breaking rules excites them. 

It is a bit degrading how they depict woman. Man wants to kill and shoot things and woman just want to get laid by hot guys?! The social stereotype in the 70s was really something. And there is a big plot hole, if all the guns were programmed to which they couldn’t fire while aiming at something thermal then how on earth the Gunslinger could even kill anyone? (please correct me if I’m wrong.)

One thing admirable about Westword is the fact that it is a thriller. There is no doubt that the Terminator was based on the Gunslinger. Westword paved the way of this new genre (sic-fi thriller, the battles with the  A.I.s). It was pretty forward in it’s time.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) - David Yates

If Harry Potter is about minorities then Fantastic Beasts expands on this idea which J.K Rowling has been trying to convey for years. 

It is not a coincident Rowling wrote the Fantastic Beasts, if the world of magic is a metaphor of homosexuality (or any minority) then the beasts in the Fantastic Beasts are the outcasts within the outcasts. From the beginning of the film, they make it clear that the magical world/ culture is different between England and the States where they are not supposed to make any contact with no-maj’. The premise of the film is about Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), who is on a journey to write a book about the Fantastic Beasts and try to get people to understand them instead of killing them, travels to New York and accidentally his pets run away. Scamander represents an utopia for the mythical creatures, a sanctuary where they shouldn’t  be needing it in the first place. It is just like any fights on equal rights, we should even need to flight for them in the first place.

The concept of “Obscurus” is somehow literate and interesting. It refers to people, mainly kids, who are oppressed/ denied their ability in magic and for some reasons  they become the prefect host for the “virus” obscurus where dark magic takes over and they could no longer control their power and could even be consumed by the virus. Doesn’t it ring a bell? Orlando shooting, the shooter was raised in a conservative background where he was told being gay was not normal to a point he even believed it and took action on it (of course it was just a hypothesis) but it fits perfectly here. 

The idea of outcast is amplified with the characters, Scamander was expelled from school and have no friends, Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) was reassigned to a different department in MACUSA (Magical Congress of the United States of America) and Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) was an outcast of the working class, and we have Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), Langdon Shaw (Ronan Raftery) just to name a few. The Fantastic Beasts is basically a propaganda for the minorities, stop fighting within ourselves, we should get together and fight for a better life. 

The message behind was overshadowed for years but the Fantastic Beasts brought it back to the limelight. The special effects are as good as usual. It was really a delight watching it. 

Jules et Jim (1962) - François Truffaut

I know people say Les quatre cents coups [The 400 blows] (1959) is one of his best works but seriously, personally, I prefer Jules et Jim. Les quatre cents coups is a personal journey of what Truffaut went through as a kid, for which I admire. However, on the other hand Jules et Jim is more of an eternal story which no matter the time and cultural differences somewhat you could find something to relate to.

I am not talking being “friend zoned”, in my case, Catherine (Jeanne Moreau), it’s not a cliché that I relate myself as the female protagonist. I have valid reasons of my own. The fact she is candid, reckless and a little egoistic seem like a perfect description of me. I could totally see myself standing on the thin line, juggling my life as it comes. I guess I like playing with fire. Hope I won’t end up being burnt.

Jules et Jim is considerably really forward for it’s time, even today 3-way relationships are still being looked down on. Just because love is blind and it has stood before time way before our existences, it is still as represented as a taboo. I am pro-love, which means, just let people do whatever they want.

Les demoiselles de Rochefort (1967) - Jacques Demy

Hitchcock said suspense didn't have to be fear, it could be a lot of other things. The anxeity of whether the protagonists will find love is almost unbearable, especially the character of Delphine (Catherine Deneuve). Demy playfully sugarcoats the tone and the visual of the movie which is absolutely brillant. 

"Anticipation" is strongly present in Lola (1961) and in La paraluie de cherbourg (1964), but all three of them have a different interpretation of the "wait", either hopelessly or desperately in love and in Les demoiselles de Rochefort, they are more like romantically looking for the love of their lives/ their dreams. It's not sad but it's the suspense that I couldn't stand. The more joyful it seems the more painful for the audience (ME) to anticipate the end, which is brillant how Demy links the audience and the film together with the same concept.