Ouija: Origin of Evil

"Ouija: Origin of Evil" is one of those movies you wish you could see again for the first time. Even though I first saw it years ago, I decided to dedicate my last blog post to this film since it is one I can talk extensively about.  

For context, This film is a precursor to the 2014 movie "Ouija" and was directed by Mike Flanagan. It takes place in the 1960s. The plot of the movie is undoubtedly one of its most unique elements. A widowed mother and her two daughters are central to the story; they con people by organizing fictitious seances to get money. But their lives take a dark turn when they bring home an Ouija board as a new prop for their act. They soon begin to encounter paranormal phenomena, and it becomes apparent that they have allowed the evil demon into their house.

The film's pace is perfect, with the tension escalating as the plot develops. 

One thing I do want to emphasize is the cinematography of this film. There were so many incredible shots that were creative and fear-evoking. The one that stands out to me is when one of the characters looks through a hole in the wall, but the camera is angled to see slightly over his shoulder. There, we see the possessed young girl continuously shifting and making odd bodily movements. The camera is just slightly out of focus. However, the audience knows that WE are supposed to be seeing the erratic behavior from the little girl, not the character in the frame. Horror movies do that often, with one of the most famous stereotypes of watching a movie involves the line "Don't go in there!". With the help of nifty camera work and effective sound design, Flanagan does a fantastic job of evoking a frightening atmosphere in even the most uninteresting of moments. Compared to other horror films, the jump scares are well-timed and not overused, which is refreshing.

Additionally, "Ouija: Origin of Evil" features excellent acting. Lulu Wilson and Annalise Basso, the two young actresses who play Alice's daughters, and Elizabeth Reaser, who plays the mother, perform outstandingly. 

 

Because the characters are well-developed and written, it's easier for the audience to empathize with them.

The movie's attention to detail is another noteworthy aspect. The film, set in the 1960s, accurately depicts the time's style, music, and general aesthetic. This focus on detail enhances the story's immersion for the viewer and gives the scares a more genuine feel.

In conclusion, the horror film "Ouija: Origin of Evil" is beautifully produced and will have you on the edge of your seat. The acting is outstanding, the tale is captivating, and the level of detail is astounding. This film is a tribute to Mike Flanagan's brilliance and further evidence that he is among the top horror film directors. 

Also, like I mentioned at the beginning of this, this will most likely be my last blog post. It's been fun. Bye!! 

- Isa <3

"Her" - A Short Film by Isabella Ruiz (and Amani Jones)

shock advertisement for domestic violence that inspired the creation of "Her" 

I devised the idea for “Her” by seeing this shock advertisement  in which a dress was on a punching bag. I thought it was so shocking and the image so disturbing that I wanted to put that photo into a video format for the short film. My boyfriend Ben (the individual in the short film) works at a sports equipment store called “Play It Again Sports.” Obviously, they had punching bags available, so at 8 am on a Saturday, Ben and I walked into a Target, bought a dress, and then went into Play it Again before opening hours to get the shots I wanted. The first shot I wanted was a low-angle shot. I liked the audience to see his face and movement but not anything else around him. The following scene is filmed with a medium close-up shot. Similar to the effect of the first take, I wanted the audience to see Ben’s face, understand what he was doing, and keep the object that he was punching out of frame. The last shot, which was a medium shot, was meant to make the person watching feel like a “fly on a wall” rather than being told to look in a particular direction. This take was done to make the film feel less like someone was holding a camera to the subject, but instead, we were watching as if we were a random object in the room. I also ensured with this shot that I wanted to minimize any movement or shaking in the camera, as again, I avoided giving the audience the sense that someone was filming this segment. The last take inside the building was done for dramatic effect and to end the scene quickly without making it so abrupt that it seemed unnatural. This is the last time that we see him punching something. It is also the last time we get these weird angles and perspectives that don’t allow the audience to see what he was beating. There is then a film roll transition into the film’s last scene, where we see Ben walking away, and it’s revealed that the punching bag he was hitting had a dress on it this whole time, implying that it was a woman he was beating that entire time. We also watch the punching bag swing back and forth for an extra second, hopefully adding a feeling of discomfort and unease as the audience begins to understand what just happened. The film transition was not my favorite, but it was a decent way to change locations without being painfully obvious or blatant. In case it wasn’t obvious, 

the punching bag was never in the frame until the film’s last scene. This was done intentionally. The audience assumes he’s punching a punching bag, but they don’t expect a dress to be on it, which symbolizes domestic violence against women. 

I had a lot of fun editing the footage to put this together. One of the issues I had with filming was that we could only get in the store very early in the morning, which had bright light, contradicting the scene’s dark undertone. In editing, I attempted to make the atmosphere as dark as possible while still being able to visualize the surrounding and not squinting or order to try and see things. While editing, I noticed that the footage had an almost purple tint due to my adjustments and the lighting. While that wasn’t what I intended, purple is the color for domestic violence awareness, so I think it worked out in my favor. The next thing I edited was the sound. No one other than me would know this, but the sound is canned. Meaning, I edited the sound to make the room sound smaller and more narrow to create a feeling of closeness and discomfort. While extraordinarily subtle, I’d like to think it changed the feel and vibe of the film. The text sprawling across the screen wasn’t challenging to do. I added my text, timed out the effect, and put a black background behind it. After that, I had my short film. 

The name “Her” is not written anywhere in the film, but I created this name because it’s short and straightforward and talks about the film’s contents but doesn’t give it away.

This project was enjoyable for me as I used to be very into filming and editing (I posted this on my old Youtube channel), and I forgot how fun it was to take clips and make them tangible. I don’t expect my short film to change the world or make any difference, but I will say it was a fun project I truly enjoyed. 

My Thoughts on Swiss Army Man

 

I have never seen a movie like Swiss Army Man ever in my life, and I will never see anything like it again. 

I have mixed feelings about this movie as its off-putting nature made me uncomfortable, and it was hard to see the more profound meaning of the story. This comes from someone who loves weird movies and seeing directors and writers get creative and think of things outside the box, but this movie wasn’t my favorite. My first red flag with this movie was that it started with the main character Hank physically (and eventually emotionally) manipulating a corpse to deal with his mental health issues. I think Manny was an actual corpse (whether or not he had magical powers is up to the viewer’s interpretation), which makes the situation very unsettling. Whether you look at it from a fantasy or realistic perspective, spending time with a corpse, especially of someone you don’t know, is quite disturbing. On top of this, this corpse has erections and talks about sex and women, which is very uncomfortable. I laughed while watching, but it was more of a nervous laugh than anything. I kept asking myself, how am I supposed to react to this? Is this supposed to be funny? Sad? Interpretive? I was confused most of the time. But please recognize that I don’t want to completely trash this movie because it may be that I don’t get it. Others might love it as it most likely portrays some more profound message I don’t understand. Also, I absolutely adore  Daniel Radcliffe and think he is a phenomenal actor, so it is also nothing against him. Numerous times throughout the movie, I looked away or put my head down due to my discomfort and unease. And the kiss scene really grossed me out (not because it was a kiss between two men, it’s because it was a kiss with a live person and a CORPSE… let’s be clear). Overall, I just don’t see the point of this film. I don’t understand their message or goal with this movie. I would say maybe mental illness or that people find strange ways to cope with things, but I didn’t fully grasp that message through the dialog or imagery depicted. If I’m being frank, this movie felt like someone took a bunch of shrooms, wrote down a movie idea, and ran with it. This can lead to great films in some instances, but again, this wasn’t speaking to me as I thought it was intended to. 

With all that being said, I would still recommend people to watch it because it is a unique experience watching this film, and I think people should see it at least once, even if it’s just for shock value or to start a conversation. Or, just sitting there and thinking, “What the hell did I just watch?” I don’t particularly like hating on a movie because I believe every film has intention, vision, and passion behind it, and just because I didn’t enjoy it doesn’t mean the next person wouldn’t. And that’s how I feel about Swiss Army Man. 

Making a Short Film

 

How do you make a short film? What will my short movie be about? How do you find a topic for a short film?

These are valid and important questions that I asked myself when starting the filmmaking process. And here’s what I have come up with so far. 

I want my short film to be interpretive and creative and portray an important message. I have the specific shots planned out in my head. I will use primarily low-angle shots with a medium close-up and switch from what side I am filming from. I wouldn’t say I like the camera to shake or move, so I will not be filming with my hands but instead propping up my phone with different items to get the desired effect. While I understand that hand-held shots can be incredibly impactful in some cases (Blair Witch Project), minus those particular circumstances, it makes the film come off as being very novice. I’m not aiming to win an Academy Award anytime soon, so that’s not a significant concern for me, but still something I want to be aware of. I also want to make it a point not to see anything or anyone but the main focus of the film. That way, there is no context for the audience, which causes them to be more interested in what is happening. After a few low-angle shots, I want to switch to a medium shot, finally revealing the scene and what has happened. 

I want the person watching it to say “Oh” once they see it. I don’t know if I can create what I envision, but I will try. My film is based on a shock advertisement which I will eventually post here, but until I’m done editing and filming, I will keep it a surprise. Cinematography will make all the difference in my short film. I’ve actually filmed/edited videos my whole life, from making weird video star edits to actual youtube videos. So, I’m pretty excited to have an excuse to edit again and pick up a hobby I once adored. I will most likely make a follow-up post to this with my short film and explain the meaning/reasoning behind it. But, for now, this is just my thought process.  

GET OUT Movie Analysis

 

"GET OUT" by Jordan Peele is a fantastic film that covers real-world issues while adding a solid plotline and even some humor. The movie is centered around a young black man named Chris going on a short getaway trip with his white girlfriend of five months, Rose, to meet her parents for the first time. On this trip, Chris realizes that things are off. There are only two black people at this residence, and they have seemingly white behaviorism. We later find out these people are actually white people inside of a black body, essentially using it as a vessel. Meanwhile, the individual who originally owned the body lives in “the sunken place,”-- a state of hypnosis induced by Rose’s mother, Missy, to transfer the white brain into the black body. Chris realizes the same thing will happen to him and escapes by killing the entire family and being picked up by his friend Rod. Then the film ends. Roll credits. 

When I first saw the film, I was about 14 years old, and while I understood the concept, I didn’t truly grasp its depth and meaning. As a 19-year-old, I see why this movie was so monumental. Peele became an auteur. Peele established his own style, blending horror, race, and even a bit of comedy into one movie. He has since gone on to create other films like “Us” and “Nope,” which have an (almost) all-black cast, which is so rare and unique. Peele uses his films to highlight societal issues and cultural norms while making an entertaining movie. What I liked most about Get Out was that everything was intentional. Every piece of dialog and small gesture was made on purpose to portray a message subtly. I think Get Out is a movie you can’t truly appreciate until you’ve seen it twice. Because when I rewatched it, I saw all the hints and cues I had missed in my first watch. Peele doesn’t rely on monsters to scare the audience. In his movies, humans are the monsters, Because we most certainly can be. 

Looking strictly at Jordan Peele’s cinematography, I think he told the story beautifully. One particular scene that stands out to me is the infamous hypnosis scene with Missy and Chris in the living room area. This scene is so powerful for numerous reasons. For starters, it is the first time we have “evidence” that something is off about the family—everything up until this point was speculative. 

In the first “shot,” we see Missy and Chris talking about the same distance from the camera at a medium shot. This shot is intended to create neutrality, as they are “equals” at this moment. There doesn’t seem to be any noticeable power dynamic shift (other than the fact that it is Rose’s mother), and they seem just to have a conversation. As the scene progresses, the camera gets closer and closer to the characters, making the audience uneasy. As the shots switch back and forth between the two, a slow zoom begins on Chris’s face. It’s building anticipation and signaling to the audience that something is about to happen. Looking at the frames, we can see they don’t appear full other than Chris’ face. All that is behind him is a lamp and curtains, and they aren’t very in focus with the camera. I  think this was done intentionally, so the audience has nowhere to look but Chris’s face and to make the setting more realistic. After watching multiple interviews with Peele about his film “Get Out,” he repeatedly mentioned that he didn’t want the characters to do anything that everyday people wouldn’t do. So in this scene, the setting itself doesn’t cause alarm. As I previously mentioned, Peele’s attention to detail is awe-inspiring as we analyze slight potential hints and clues to what could be coming down the line. For example,  I think that the fact that both Chris and Missy were mainly wearing white clothes was intentional. It maybe was intended to symbolize that Chris was a black body in a white shell (clothing). Missy might’ve been wearing almost-all white to indicate the color she thought was superior. 

The set design is perfect because it resembles every ordinary white family home. There seemingly is nothing too crazy or off-put about the house itself. The lighting is dimmed but slightly, giving an ominous feeling but not so ominous that it feels completely unrealistic. Peele doesn’t use long shots very often in his work. He likes the camera to be closer to the character, to get into their feelings and understand their mind. He creates intimacy between the character and the audience.  

Peele was very creative in his stylistic choices for his film. Everything felt intentional, and there was a backstory or reasoning. There were little to no jumpscares, but that didn’t make the movie any less horrifying. He made a horror film just by the mere concept of the movie. That is an exceptionally unique talent that gives Peele the right to his title of being an “auteur.” 

As an overall consensus, this is one of the better movies of the decade and is worth the watch. It is terrifying, has humor elements, and starts a serious yet needed conversation. 

Sophia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette"

 

Sofia Copploa’s 2006 film “Marie Antoinette” depicts the early life of the late queen but in a modern way. To make the movie intriguing and engaging for more current audiences, she adds certain elements, both noticeable and subtle, to keep the audience attentive and have them follow the story intensely. Her vision is clear and coherent. She expresses her idea through her mise en scene. 

Storytelling can be a difficult task for many directors to take on, especially when covering a work of non-fiction. With historical movies such as these, the producers want to include the “highlights” of this person’s life, often scattered across the years. To cover these events, there is a lot of time skipping, personality changing, zeitgeist shifting, and more. All of these must be portrayed through a lens and a few actors.  

Sophia Coppola explores the life of Marie Antoinette through a more contemporary lens. She addresses her issues and challenges in a way that would make it easier for us to understand. She shows Marie as a young girl, feeling the societal pressures to act delicately and politely while fulfilling her duties as a princess. Marie is portrayed initially as delicate and weak but still in a position of power. But with that power sprouts grave feelings of loneliness. 

Coopla shows this feeling by using wide and medium shots where Marie is positioned towards the center of the room, either by herself or with a few characters beside her. She is rarely in the back of the crowd or side of the room. This can be summed up by the fact that she is royalty, so obviously, she will always be at the center of attention. However, I think this was a strategic stylistic choice by Sophia to show Marie is disconnected from her surroundings and those around her. By being in the center, she is automatically isolated from the general crowd, which can leave the character feeling vulnerable and alone. Coppola strategically placed Marie here to demonstrate how empty Marie felt and that she could not connect to the people around her and adjust to her new life. 

Coopia also showed Marie’s development as a person and leader as she got older. She acted essentially as eye candy for the early years of her life. She didn’t have many responsibilities other than to give birth to the king’s offspring, which alone proved to be a struggle. As we travel further down Marie’s life, we see glimpses of rebellious teenage years, mischief, and what would be considered “normal” adolescent behavior had it not been in a royal context. Furthermore, we see Marie engage in sneaky affairs while growing up to be a young woman and having children taking care of them while caring for her farm/garden. 

Sophia Coppola also demonstrated her cultural awareness by portraying Marie Antoinette as a more positive character rather than the greedy evil queen that people most commonly associate her with. Antoinette is a complex character, and we see her as a young girl being brought up in such a privileged and uptight world. We also understand that she was naive and was far too young to be given such heavy responsibilities. Sophia did a great job showing that Marie might not have actually been this horrible malicious individual who wanted to see people suffer. 

Overall, Sophia Coppola did a fantastic job directing Marie Antoinette; her mise en scene and vision is apparent throughout the film. I would love to see more of her work soon. 

Sources: 

Madeleine Pelling Research associate in material and visual cultures of 18th-century Britain. “Marie             Antoinette – Extravagant French Queen Has Long Been a Symbol of Female Excess.” The                     Conversation, 8 Feb. 2023, https://theconversation.com/marie-antoinette-extravagant-french-                queen-has-long-been-a-symbol-of-female-excess-181561.

Lathrop, Gail, and David O Sutton . Elements of Mise-En-Scene - City University of New York. ProseProductionSink , https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/latinxscreens/files/2021/02/Elements-of-mise-en-scene-G.-Lathrop-and-D.-Sutton.pdf.

Sharman, Russell. “Mise-En-Scène.” Moving Pictures, 18 May 2020, https://uark.pressbooks.pub/movingpictures/chapter/mise-en-scene/.

Cinematic Shots in "Rear Window"

Rear Window is probably one of the more unique films I’ve seen in a long time. I have become acquainted with fast-paced movies with CGI and subplots with intricate storylines. It tells a story of mystery, crime, romance, and sprinkles of comedy. What made the film so unique was the lack of change in scenery. The camera tended to stay in the same areas, like Jefferies’s (the main character) apartment. In fact, we never leave Jefferies’s apartment until the very end of the movie. Usually, filmmakers like to create change, so the audience doesn’t get bored staring at the same room and furniture for an hour straight. However, how Alfred Hitchcock directed this film allowed him to tell the narrative through camera angles, lighting, shots, and numerous other cinematic techniques. 

For example, this shot and the next one are my favorite shots of the whole movie. First, I like how centered Jeffries is framed in reference to the room, wheelchair, and background colors. There is a titled shift, so we, as the audience, know we should be looking at him, not anything in the background. Additionally, this scene was filmed using a medium close-up shot, allowing the audience further to understand Jefferies’ expressions and his thinking process. He furrows his brows slightly at some points to display struggle or discomfort because of his inability to move with fluidity. It adds more realness to the film and immerses the audience even deeper into the film. The actors’ abilities also greatly determine this effect but can produce significantly enhancing results when used correctly. In general, it is evident that the filmmaker paid close attention to details. At the end of the telescope, we can see the reflection of the apartment buildings from outside. This is a small detail that most people probably didn’t think about or notice when watching this film for the first time. And while that may seem like an obvious choice, it adds to the atmosphere and makes us feel like we are literally in the room with Jefferies as he’s looking through his telescope. 

Lastly, I want to discuss my next favorite shot, which comes just after the scene with Jefferies and the telescope. It’s Jefferies’s point of view through the telescope, which is always very interesting to see. To convince the audience that they were looking through the telescope, Hitchcock used a medium-full shot to capture Mr. Thorwald and his actions from a perfect distance: not too far or close. Also, there was a vignette effect around the lens, so we quite literally have a big circle telling us where to look. It also gives the same viewpoint you would get if you were looking through a telescope since they have a dark area around the lens. But my actual favorite detail (I know I’ve said this a million times, but this time I mean it) is the subtle movement of the camera during this shot. It is probably the most immersive and realistic effect of everything the movie uses. Because contrary to previous shots (minus the pan shot at the beginning), the camera stays perfectly still to convey that we are observing an interaction, not part of it. But this was different. It felt like our eyes were darting around, trying to catch Mr. Thorwalds’s every move. It felt like we were Jeffries. It was brilliantly done. 

Overall, this movie, while outdated, has numerous cinematic techniques and qualities that make it timeless. From the talented actors to the beautiful directing and plot line, it qualifies to be one of the classics.