Final

In the two films (The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth), the outward appearances of the monsters are completely different. In The Devil's Backbone the monster is not so much a monster at all. It's a young boy ghost who has a bloody gash on his head. In the film at first the ghost is treated something like a messenger, he speaks only to Carlos and isn't exposed much. Even though as I stated the ghost is just a boy he's still frightening but, Carlos in a way communicates with the ghost. The ghost gives Carlos messages of who killed him and this is the more sentimental side of the ghost. The reason I say sentimental side is because at this point of the film the ghost of course has that terrifying presents because of the glimpses the cinematographer give of the ghost, but hasn't killed anyone or caused any one's death. Before you find out the ghost is the missing boy there is a feeling he's trying to reach out. I would say that overall Del Toro treats the monster or ghost in The Devil's Backbone as a soul who's looking for closure. I didn't see Pan's Labyrinth so I don't know exactly how Del Toro treated the monsters.

Rabbit-Proof Fence

Based on a true story, Rabbit-Proof fence really was directed very well. I think the story of the three girls from Jigalong was really replayed precise on the big screen. Everyone from the young actresses Evelyn Sampi, Tianna Sansbury, and Laura Monaghan to the tracker David Gulpili gave motivating performances. When I did research on the film discovered that all of the girls were amateur actresses. Watching the movie no one could have convinced me these girls were not highly experienced at acting.

Sets and environments play an extremely important role in displaying the landscape the girls were up against. Wide shots of Australia really showed jagged and rugged areas in which the girls had to cross. The oldest girl at one point had carry the youngest, because of the rocks on the surface. They even went as far as stealing a pair of socks for their feet to protect them from getting splinters and blisters. In this films there were what I call natural sets, these are sets create by the natural environment.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? V.S. The Odyssey

O Brother, Where Art Thou?, to me was The Odyssey but in the 1930's. The main character of the Odyssey, Ulysses was played in O Brother, Where Art Thou? by Odysseus who which they called Everett. In both movies the main characters were on a mission or better yet a journey. On Everett's long journey he and his two not so bright friends encountered people and things that were modern 1930 references of the Odyssey.

For example the old blind man the tree men seen on the railroad track was interpreted as Tiresias , which was the prophet from The Odyssey. There are other characters like the Sirens, which were the three women in the water that lure Everett and his friend with their attractive looks and singing. The Cyclops also was Big Dan and I thought it was clever how there was an eye patch on Big Dan's face to represent the one eye a cyclops.

The greatest difference I notice between the two movies was how Everett and the other men experienced both bad luck and good luck.
I believe the good luck they received was actually god giving them another chance at life and freedom. For example when they were caught by the sheriff, and were about to be hanged, god was the only chance they had at getting out of that situation and he came through. Another large amount of luck was when the men rescued Tommy Johnson (the blues guitarist) from the KKK cross burning ceremony the men had to escape about 50 people. There were times when bad luck prevailed like when Everett, Delmar, and Pete jumped into the car of George "Baby Face" Nelson. I don't think there's anyone worse they could've jumped in the car with.

Mojave Mirage

I think this was a documentary that really showed what people see as tourist attractions. In my opinion I would not have even attempted to visit the middle of the Mojave desert to see a phone booth, or attempt to use the phone. That's why I believe this film highlighted how a phone booth in the center of the desert brought people together just to answer or use the phone. Some of the tourist went as far as camping out at the sight where the phone was, with the phone ringing the entire night. That really shows special or monumental the people looked at the phone as. As I stated before I wouldn't have attempted to visit the phone, so this makes me think the only type of people who would go out to and use the phone are adventurous people.

Peach Blossoms

In my interpretation of the Peach Orchard I thought the girl at the beginning was in a way a messenger who's assignment was to lead the boy to the peach orchard. Once the boy was at the orchard I think there was a type of trial for the boy in reference to him having anything to do with the orchard being cut down. The boy wasn't found guilty in a sense, and the peach orchards were rebuilt. At the end of this segment when the little girl reappeared, and then the orchards were cut down once again I thought this was an act of the spirits reminding the boy to stay loyal to the trees.

Foxes

This short segment shows how disobedience is never good. In result of the boy being disobedient he is force to become a man at a tender age. The boy is about to embark on a journey in search for his forgiveness, and I do think his journey will be a success one. I think the story reminded me of Willie Wonka, how even though the kids were warned not to do something they did it anyway and suffered the consequences.

Mid-Term

I think Throne of Blood surely had two shades of Shakespeare's Macbeth. In Throne of Blood Washizu is revisited by the ghosts of the General in which he kills, because he poses a threat to his position. Another event that happened similar so the events in Shakespeare's Macbeth was howWashizu was defeated in battle by the prophesy of men coming in the trees but, he didn't meet his death in that way. I thought that there was too much similarity between the two stories that one couldn't say they were almost the same, I believe they were actually the same. One huge difference between Throne of Blood and Macbeth was the wives.Washizu's wife wasn't as half as ambitious as Macbeth's wife, this I think is a important factor that showed that Throne of Blood isn't just a remake of Shakespeare's Macbeth.

The arrow scene at the end of the film was one of the realistic. The arrows that were launched at Washizu were real and you couldn't say that his facial expressions weren't good enough of good acting because they were 100% real expressions weren't good enough of good acting because they were 100% real expressions. Of course the scene was dangerous but, I think that's the factor which made the scene so famous. If the arrows were done with special effects in my opinion I think the scene would have been considered great instead of famous.

Overall I think that Shakespeare's Macbeth and Noe theater took a little from both
of the Theaters, and they came together to create Throne of Blood. As I before stated there were elements of Macbeth, I don''t believe that there were too many elements of Macbeth taken. If there too many elements taken I think people would have saw Throne of Blood as just a copy or remake of Macduff. Scenes like the Forest and the castle help to create a feel to create a feel similar to that of Macbeth.