The Champ 1979

The Champ (1979) seems like a great movie you can show in your future classes. Incredibly touching ! Starring Faye Dunaway too. Coincidence much !

Amy Winehouse

Although this is totally unrelated to film, still, a tribute to a legend. Amy R.I.P

ET18 Chinatown

Chinatown, a detective film with elements of film noir was shown in 1974. Chinatown, has been called one of the greatest films ever made. It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, winning in the Best Original Screenplay category for Robert Towne. After watching the film, I have noticed parallels between the plot and Joseph Campbell's model of the Monomyth.

At the start of the plot, the hero, J.J Gittes, is living in a normal world where there is nothing out of the ordinary going on. He is just making his living as a private investigator. The entrance of the fake Mrs Mulwray is the first call from the labyrinth, the first call that beckons him towards the entry of the labyrinth. At first he is reluctant, again similar to the hero in the Monomyth, who refuses the call of the labyrinth because he is afraid of change. In the film, Gittes is reluctant to accede to Mrs Mulwray's request because he doesn't want to break up a marriage. However, he accedes in the end, when the fake Mrs Mulwray makes him an offer he can't refuse. Gittes then tails Hollis Mulwray. Hollis Mulwray holds the answer to all of the questions asked later on in the film, of course, we don't know that the first time we watch the film, but in retrospect, the tailing of Hollis Mulwray was actually the meeting of the mentor, the fourth stage of a hero's journey.

In the fifth stage of a hero's journey, he crosses a threshold, from a world that is normal in every sense of the word, into a world where rules don't apply, where left is right, and everything is topsy-turvy. Similarly, J.J Gittes first realises he has been duped by a fake Mrs Mulwray, then discovers the dead body of his mentor. After that, he nearly drowns in water cascading down an aquaduct that was supposed to be bone dry according to experts. Everything as he knew it was upside down, and he has entered a foreign world.

In the sixth stage of the hero's journey according to Joseph Campbell, the hero meets with test, allies and enemies. In the film, Gittes first meets his enemies in unsavory water department security chief Claude, and his henchman ( a cameo by director Roman Polanski ). The henchman slashes Gitte's nose with a knife leaving him with an ugly scar. In my opinion, the scar represents the changes a hero must face in his journey. The scar is also a test of sorts, a test to see if the hero (Gittes) could withstand physical pain. The bogus Mrs Mulwray then reveals herself as an ally, providing Gittes with important information, thus completing the sixth stage.

After Gittes visits the hall of records, comparing recent land grantees with names of deceased persons in the obituary column. Then he drives to an orange grove in the northwest San Fernando Valley, and is shot at, caught and beaten by angry landowners. They explain that the water department has been demolishing their water tanks and poisoning their wells. By following the trails, he is preparing for a major challenge in this new world which he has entered, a parallel to Joseph Campbell's hero.

Gittes manages to piece together all the information to finally get a clear picture of what's going on. Every hint and clue points to the Mar Vista Inn. As a hero, he is nearing the center of the labyrinth, and it is at the center of this special place that he confronts death. Again, in the Mar Vista Inn, Gitte's ruse has been discovered and he is pursued and shot at. His life is threatened. After that, he is saved by Miss Mulwray and they sleep together soon after. The eighth step of a hero's journey states that out of death comes a new life. Of course, it doesn't mean that literally. However, I think the act of copulation is a metaphor for a new life. Because sex is the act of procreating, that is, making new life out of the union of 2 humans. And thus concludes the eighth step of the hero's journey. It is interesting to note that every significant part of Gitte's story is almost a like-for-like parallel of Joseph Campbell's Monomyth model.

Besides the possibilities of a blossoming relationship with Mrs Mulwray, he now knows everything. The mystery of the disappearing water, and the mystery surrounding the Mulwrays and the Crosses. He learns of Evelyn Mulwray's sexual liaison with her father at age 15. And the child (Katherine) born of said ill-fated union. Comparing Gittes to Joseph Campbell's hero, it would seem that Gittes's reward is knowledge slash the missing piece to the puzzle.

Gittes then decides to help Evelyn and her daughter escape the evil clutches of Noah Cross. He also plans to expose Noah Cross for all his shady wheeling and dealing. In comparison with Joseph Campbell's hero, the hero (Gittes) is driven to complete the adventure, leaving the Special World to be sure the treasure is brought home, or in Gittes's case, ensure that the information is handed over to the proper authorities and justice is served. In the 10th step of the journey, a chase scene is often present, to signal the urgency and danger of the mission. In Gittes's story, he escapes the clutches of Lou Escobar narrowly, after being coerced by Lou into revealing Evelyn's location.

At the eleventh step of the hero's journey, he is severely tested on the threshold of home. Gittes is tested when he is on the verge of busting Noah Cross. Lou Escobar doesn't believe him, he is taken under custody, and all seems lost. Another moment of death occurs, specifically that of Evelyn's. She is shot dead when she tries to escape from Noah. His past and present has come full circle, all conflict resolved.

He ends the adventure a different man. Different good, or different bad, we shall never know. The last step of the hero's journey is not fully explored, which leaves room for imagination and speculation, making the film all the more intriguing. This film has also proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, the accuracy of the pattern of narrative identified by the American scholar Joseph Campbell of the archtype known as the 'hero'.

Final Essay

Who amongst us can forget the awe-inspiring scene at the start of The Lion King, where the animals of the wild African prairie make their way to Pride Rock to celebrate the arrival of the future king amidst the backdrop of the rising sun and the stirring, rising African tribal rhythm that is the song ‘Circle Of Life’? Who amongst us can forget the irrepressible Hades from Hercules voiced by an equally irrepressible James Woods, spouting wit and one-liners like nobody’s business? Yes, The Lion King and Hercules truly left us with some good memories. Although the 2 films may look nothing alike at first glance, there are actually many similarities to be found. Now, seeing as these 2 films were produced in the era of the ‘Disney Renaissance’ , the way these 2 films were animated were pretty similar, the only difference lying within the artwork. Even though the plot for both films were radically different, they had some really important things in common, mainly their genre and their themes. Even in their similarities, there still exists subtle differences, and that is what I shall try to explain.

First of all, I’d have to mention the genre of the 2 films. Both these films are melodramas. In The Lion King, Simba is the clear cut protagonist, whereas Scar, his nefarious uncle, is the primary antagonist. The plot is pretty clear, with no ambiguity whatsoever. Scar tricks Simba out of his rightful place as King and into exile. Simba must face his past and stand up to his villainous uncle. Likewise, in Hercules, the plot is also quite simple. Hercules’s evil uncle, Hades, robs Hercules of his immortality at birth as, according to prophecy, Hercules is the only one who can thwart Hade’s plan to take over Mt Olympus. Hercules then sets about regaining his immortality, thwarting Hade’s evil plan in the meantime. In my opinion, the plot was made this way so that there was no room for ambiguity whatsoever, as it wouldn’t sit well with Disney’s primary target audience of younger children. Although they’re both melodramas, The Lion King is the more serious of the two, as the story is influenced heavily by the Shakespearean play Hamlet (McElveen), which again, in my opinion, is that while the plot is simple enough for the children, the literate adult audience wouldn’t find the film ridiculous. Sure enough, there are funny moments in the film, but the nature of the film is, by far, the darkest I’ve ever seen in Disney. In Hercules however, it is just pure fun and hilarity. The story is based on Greek mythology, in its loosest terms, because the true story of Hercules and the story told in the film are just way too different. Hilarious one-liners, numerous references to pop phenomena and funny dialogue, all combine to make this film a really light hearted affair that is targeted chiefly at young children and families. Even though there isn’t any depth in the film, it doesn’t make the film any less enjoyable, because most of the audience of Hercules are usually kids, and they aren’t looking to discover the meaning of life or whatever, instead, they are there chiefly for shits and giggles. That said however, it is interesting to note how both films are so alike and different at the same time.

A similar theme found in both films is the ‘coming-of-age’ theme. In ‘The Lion King’, Simba, a young, carefree prince who has no idea of concepts like ’responsibilities’ and ‘duty’ when he escapes from his kingdom in shame, returns to claim his rightful place as the alpha male of Pride Rock a more thoughtful, mature and responsible adult. Likewise, in ’Hercules’, we see Hercules, the titular character, constantly growing, maturing. We first see him as an insecure adolescent, then, an arrogant, hot-headed, brash, and impulsive young man who is blinded by fame. Lastly, we see him evolve into a character of noble spirit, willing to sacrifice his self, if it means being able to save his loved one. In both films, we see the protagonist maturing, both physically, and mentally, and this manages to strike a chord with us because, as an audience, we’re actually growing alongside them. We look at their mistakes, and we feel a connection, because we’ve made plenty of mistakes growing up too. As an interesting aside, in both films, the journey from boy to man, were depicted in an extremely short montage, not lasting more than 1 minute. In my opinion, this was done deliberately. By skipping the adolescent stage, both films avoid touching on sensitive subjects like teenage angst and puberty and the like, making it easier for younger children to digest the plot, and also to avoid the numerous awkward questions that would follow after the film. Anyways, these 2 great films have shown, in my opinion, the power to not only capture our imaginations, but at the same time, makes us empathize with the protagonist, thus forming a strong bond between us, the audience and the film.

However, although the themes are rather similar, there are a few minor differences. In ‘The Lion King’, there is a darker, more subtle undercurrent, of a more ‘adult’ nature, as opposed to the wild creativity, brightness and cheerfulness of ‘Hercules’. Death and violence, normally airbrushed out of most, if not all animated Disney tales, is very much present in The Lion King. In The Lion King, we see Mufasa being trampled to death by a stampede of wildebeests and a rather graphic and violent fight between 2 full-grown lions. Not only that, while The Lion King is indeed about the coming-of-age of a young boy, it is also very much about guilt and redemption, both rather ’adult’ concepts. In fact, The Lion King is actually a ‘children's facade on a very serious story of responsibility and revenge’. In a chilling parallel with Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Mufasa approached Simba the way Hamlet Sr approached Hamlet Jr, via an apparition that gave them advice that were open to interpretations (McElveen). Although Mufasa does not directly order Simba to kill Scar, it is subtly implied. Again, very adult stuff. Meanwhile, in Hercules, it’s all about adolescence self-discovery and the meaning of the word ‘responsibilities’. Which is cool and all. Except that it isn’t true. According to ancient mythology, Hercules was sired when Zeus seduced Alcmene, a mortal. Jealous Hera, Zeus’s wife, then conned Hercules into murdering his own family, thereafter forcing him to perform 12 impossible tasks, no doubt hoping he’d die in the process. As expected of Disney, they couldn’t have any of this ‘murdering his entire family’ nonsense, therefore in producing Hercules, they’ve cut out what they deemed unacceptable, and transformed what’s left into something totally different, though no less awesome. A light-hearted peek into Greek folklore, aimed at eliciting a laugh a minute with its zany wit and creativity.

There is also another theme that is similar in both films, that of ‘family’ or more specifically, the father-son complex. In The Lion King, Mufasa raises Simba with a stern yet loving hand, striving to find a balance between father and friend. He also gave his own life so that his son Simba may live on. As if that wasn’t enough, he returns as a spirit to offer guidance to Simba just when he (Simba) needed it the most. In Hercules, Hercules has been separated from his true father since birth, and only meets him when he is a teenager, therefore it is hard to judge what kind of father Zeus might have been. Nevertheless, Zeus still offers fatherly guidance and encouragement to his son from time to time, like a father should. In the end of both films, both Hercules and Simba manage to make their fathers proud, again something both films share in common. While there is some generational conflict between Simba and Mufasa, which stems mostly from Simba treating a king’s duties with light-hearted playfulness, their father-son relationship never wavers. Simba always treats his dad with respect. In Hercules, although Hercules is frustrated when told by his dad he can’t return to Mount Olympus just yet, he still treats his father with respect and reverence. The strength of their father-son bond is also shown clearly, when Hercules first rips open a volcano to free his father, and then, when they fight side-by-side to save their home, Mount Olympus. Both films show a strong father-son relationship, keeping in line with Disney’s traditions of producing family-friendly animations.

There is another unrelated difference that I’d like to point out in these 2 films, that is, the role of the female protagonist. In The Lion King, the female protagonist is Nala, Simba’s childhood friend. While in previous Disney films, a romantic relationship between the male and female leads are almost inevitable, this film deviates from the norm, focusing instead on guilt and redemption. That is not to say there is absolutely no hint of a romance. Romance in this film is merely a subplot. In fact, Nala’s contribution to this film seems limited only to coaxing Simba back from exile and giving birth to Simba’s child. However, in Hercules, Meg, Hercules’s love interest and female protagonist, is an extremely vital part of the plot. In fact, the second half of the film itself is about Meg’s budding relationship with Hercules, her subsequent betrayal and defection, and later, her noble sacrifice to save Hercules’s life. In terms of character development, Meg is definitely the more fleshed-out one. In the film, we see why she is always so bitterly cynical. Turns out Meg once sold her soul to Hades to save a man she once loved, only for him to leave her for another woman after her sacrifice. That sucked. How’s that for character development? Whereas in The Lion King, Nala just isn’t there. She’s obviously matured physically, but that’s about the extent of it. She has no back story, no whatever. That’s a pretty major difference right there between these 2 films.

Comparing these 2 films, I find that these two well-crafted masterpieces, created in the golden era of the ‘Disney Renaissance’, through a combination of excellent animations, a stellar cast and good screenplay, have achieved something truly special. This 2 films (especially The Lion King) have managed to become something of an icon for the 90’s, because of its global appeal. Anywhere, anyone, I’m sure they have heard of these 2 films at least once in their lifetime. Although there are quite a few differences between these 2 films, it is these subtle differences that give Disney animations their color and variety, proving that Disney animations aren’t just cut from different ends of the same cloth. In a word, these 2 films are timeless.

ET 17: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN: FREUD

Strangers On A Train is an American psychological thriller, directed by none other than the late Alfred Hitchcock himself. Its revolves around the fateful meeting of Guy Haines, amateur tennis player and aspiring politician, and Bruno Anthony, deranged and neurotic man. Now, this post isn't about narrating the film, so I'll cut right to the chase.

We first see Freudian elements in the film as early as the meeting of Guy and Bruno for the first time in the train. In their cabin, we see Bruno constantly spouting phrases like " We should try everything while we're alive" and "All that money and he wants me to work my way to the top. I hate him. I even want to kill him !" . All that aggression and the need for satisfaction RIGHT NOW is all very similar to Freud's theory of the ID. At the same time, Guy is constantly rationalizing and discouraging Bruno from carrying out his plans. " I want to kill him !" "You don't know what you want, Bruno." Again this is eerily reminiscent to our super-ego. Freud once said that the super-ego acts as the conscience, maintaining our sense of morality and the prohibition of taboos. Which is exactly what Guy is doing right now. In my opinion, what we're seeing, is actually a conflict between the id and the super ego of the human psyche

We also see some hints of psychosexual development (or rather, lack thereof). Notice how Bruno smokes constantly? And how he talks constantly ? And how, right before he murders Miriam, he's constantly chewing on popcorn? It would seem he screwed up in the oral stage of psychosexual development (breast-feeding), hence the constant need for his mouth do something. But it isn't just Bruno. Even Guy shows some forms of defect in his psychosexual development, more specifically, the anal stage (controlling bowel movement). Notice how uptight he is the first time we see him? He doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink and he's kinda stuck up (refusing to lunch with Bruno). We call this kind of people anally retentive.

Why does Bruno want to kill his father so badly? Is it really because he doesn't want to punch a card everyday? Freudian theory suggests otherwise. According to Feud, this situation is known as the Oedipal Conflict. In parts of the film, we see that Bruno is very close to his mother. Now, the Oedipal conflict states that the boy identifies with the father: subconsciously, he wishes to possess his mother and take his father’s place. The ID wishes to destroy the father. Now, previously, I mentioned Bruno being a metaphor for the ID of the human psyche. So that would explain why Bruno wants to kill his dad so bad. Does everyone feel this way? Yes, but thankfully our ID is kept in check by the EGO, therefore we don't run around sticking knives into our father's back the moment he's not looking.

Now, the only reason Bruno would kill Miriam is because he was under the impression that Guy had agreed to the plan. Remember, when Bruno asked him " So you think this is a good plan right?" as Guy was leaving the cabin? Guy could have replied with something along the lines of "If you even mention the word murder again, God help me, I'm going to hit you so hard, your name will be knocked out of the phone book " . Instead, he chooses to lead him on by saying "Sure, Bruno, sure". Of course, Guy didn't know Bruno was a madman. But that's beside the point. The point was, Guy's unconscious might have something to do with that. According to Freud, the unconscious contains all the material we cannot think or express. It is full of powerful drives and instincts. It is the locked basement — full of violent demons and forbidden urges. It is not improbable to think that, hidden somewhere in Guy's unconscious, is the desire to murder Miriam. It is also this unconscious desire that caused him to lead Bruno on, instead of cutting Bruno off. This would also explain the guilt he felt, every time he caught sight of Bruno stalking him. Logically, he knows he isn't at fault. But, he is aware, on an unconscious level, that he is partly responsible for Miriam's death.

While there are really many other interesting themes to this film, including that of duality, and of the darker, more subtle homoerotic undercurrent, viewing this film from a Freudian point of view really does make a nice change of scenery.With this masterpiece of a film, Hitchcock has once again proven why he is the undisputed master of psychological thrillers.

ET16- CITIZEN KANE

When I first heard of this movie, supposedly the best American film in history, my interest was piqued. To be fair, I was also a little skeptical. However, having watched the film twice, I'm now convinced it is indeed one of the best American films in history. Sadly, it is known to many, but perhaps, watched by too few.

Basically, this story is about Charles Foster Kane, a character based upon the American newspaper magnate, William Randolph Hearst. Although for all purposes, Kane and Hearst are one and the same, we have to remember, this film is about Kane and no one else. No matter how alike Kane is to Hearst, the titular figure of the film is Kane, not Hearst or anyone else.

In this film, we witness the entire life of Kane, from his childhood to his death, from his meteoric rise to his downfall in the vast confines of his tomb-like Xanadu. But, it isn't just about his life. That would be an autobiography. It's his life, as viewed from another's point of view. There's a particularly striking scene near the end of the film. Susan Alexander is sprawled on a floor, completing a jigsaw puzzle. A jigsaw puzzle, that's what Kane's life basically is. This film is about picking up the pieces of his life, to get a fragmented picture of the man once known as Charles Foster Kane, The word "rosebud" is, in my opinion, just another piece in the puzzle that is Kane's life.

By watching this film, we, the audience are essentially becoming him. By reliving his memories, we find out more of the man. And that, is essentially how the movie is about him. We are finding out more of Kane's past, by being Kane himself, but even though it is Kane's memories that we're seeing, these memories are viewed through the eyes of others, making it that much more authentic and unbiased. And through these flashbacks, we find out more and more facets of the mysterious media baron once known as Charles Foster Kane. A man who has built a vast newspaper empire only to see it crumble. A man who collects anything and everything from the four corners of the globe without being in the slightest interested in anything be collects. A man who deserts his wife and child only to be deserted in the end by the woman for whom he deserted.

There are important scenes that chronicle Kane's rise and demise. In the earlier scenes, we find the last remaining vestiges of his childhood being taken away from him, as his mother wants him taken away so that he might have a better life away from his abusive father. In one scene, we see a metal triangle in the background, whilst Kane is talking to his mother, with his father and Thatcher both present. In my opinion, the metal triangle is a metaphor for the Holy Trinity - Father, Mother, Son. Yet, the trinity is now incomplete with the presence of Thatcher. The family is broken. At this point of the story, a part of Kane is gone forever. The little boy in him.

In an incredible montage that spanned 10 years in film time, but only 2 minutes of real time. We see Kane grow from a young boy into a man. At the age of 25, Kane is a rich heir, with a world of promise ahead of him. Kane decides to enter the newspapers business with sensationalized yellow journalism. Although the papers are losing money every year, Kane refuses to throw in the towel, believing he is the champion for the "working" man. In an interesting dialog, we hear Thatcher berating Kane for hemorrhaging a million dollars a year through his "philanthropic" endeavors, at which point Kane zings him by saying he might have to close shop in 60 years at this rate. Now a personal fortune of 60 million in 1941, adjusted for inflation now, amounts to a fortune on par with the Bill Gates of our era. At this point of the film, we now know that Kane is incredibly rich, as well as being insanely generous. He also fancies himself a bit as a champion of the people, going so far as to write a Declaration Of Principles, a code that he shall live by as a person and as a publisher.

In short order, we see him turning around his newspaper business, marrying the President's daughter, and running for Governor of New York. In the meantime, we see a record of his marriage, from early bliss to the famous montage of increasingly chilly breakfasts. We also see how he adopts a mistress, Susan Alexander. In the scene, where Kane is giving a candidate's speech, with a bigger-than-life poster hanging behind him, we see Kane at the absolute pinnacle of his life. He has a child he adores, a mistress he loves and above all, he is adored by millions. For a moment, Charles Foster Kane is truly . . . happy.

In an instant, however, that all crumbles. Gettys, his rival, has somehow found out about Susan Alexander and threatens to expose him, unless Kane pulls out of the race for governor. In a rather famous scene, when Susan urges Kane to reconsider his decision to go ahead with the race, he uttered steadfastly " Only one person is going to make this decision, and that person is Charles Foster Kane". Through his words, we now see another facet (again!) of Kane, previously unseen. A selfish, self-centered man, who is impulsive and does not care about the consequences of his actions as long as he gets what he wants.

Having ended his political career the same night he ended his marriage, Kane marries his mistress and forces her into a career in opera in which she has absolutely zero talent. In a shocking twist of events, Kane fires Leland after Leland writes a bad review of Susan in her opening night. Yet, after Leland is fired, Kane writes him a check for 25 grand. Again, adjusted for inflation, that is a pretty large sum of money. In a rather touching scene, we see Kane receiving a torn-up check and the original piece of paper upon which Kane first wrote the Declaration Of Principles. Again, we see a man with ideals, but without enough character to live up to them.

Soon after, his wife leaves him after a span of time spent in boredom on Xanadu. Kane then spends his last years building his vast estate and lives alone, interacting only with his staff. In the end, he dies alone, uttering the words " Rosebud" just as the snow globe slips from his lifeless fingers. The story in the film has come full circle. What is left is closure. Of course, who among us can forget the amazing tracking shot that showed us "Rosebud" being the sled he played with in his childhood years?

In the end, how this film is about Kane, isn't just a detailed rundown of his life, much less a single word. A direct quote from the film " No single word can explain a man's life" holds true. It is how we choose to interpret Kane's behavior after we view the many facets and sides to Kane's flawed personality. Why did he do what he did? I think, is the 64 thousand dollar question. There is one more unanswered question though. What is "Rosebud"? According to Welles, it is just a dollar-book Freudian gag. Yet I think it is so much more than that. I quote Roger Ebert in saying, "Rosebud" is the emblem of the security, hope and innocence of childhood, which a man can spend his life seeking to regain. I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. One thing I can say for sure, this film isn't so simple as to be able to be deciphered after merely 2 viewings !

ET15 - REWRITE

The 1952 American comedy musical film Singing In The Rain has been accorded legendary status by it's contemporary critics, no small feat by any means. This film is as unabashedly American as apple pie, and I'm sure any American worth his salt has watched this film at least once. Now, I'm not an American, but having watched this film once, I'm glad I had the chance to, because this is truly a great film. ranking right up there in the higher echelons of films with greats such as Citizen Kane and Gone With The Wind. While the plot (A movie within a movie) is undoubtedly a breath of fresh air, it really isn't novel, as it HAS been done before. The main draw, for me, has to be the musical numbers performed in the film. I'm going to talk about 3 of my favorite numbers in the film right here, starting with. . .

Make Em' Laugh

In this number, Donald O'Connor gives, in my opinion, the second best solo performance in the film, coming in second only to Gene Kelly's Singing In The Rain. In the plot, Donald O'Connor sings this song in order to cheer up a very depressed Gene Kelly. In my opinion, the choreography of this dance is an extraordinary homage to the great comics of the silent era like Chaplin and Keaton. The choreography of the dance is timed to perfection with the lyrics of the song, making it doubly funny. However, what struck me most in the song was the frankness and openness displayed by Cosmo. He knows who the real star of the show is, and has fully embraced his role as a sidekick. He doesn't try to be someone he is not. Unlike Don and Kathy, who are not entirely truthful with their identities at first. There was a phrase that struck me as well. " The show must go on". This phrase clearly illustrated the hardships and rigor faced by Hollywood actors that the audience most likely doesn't know of, subtly implying that being an actor isn't all fun and games.

You Were Meant For Me

This romantic number, performed by Kelly, is simply extraordinary. Don, in an effort to "do things right", brings Kathy to a studio with sets such as a balcony, a glorious backdrop and colored lights to serenade her. There is also a noticeable contrast between the now and the then. The first time they met, Kathy hides her affection for Don underneath a veil of indifference and sarcasm, whereas Don, although slightly put off, feels a certain degree of affection for her too, yet he is too proud to admit it. This time however, she has clearly and unashamedly fallen in love with him. He is also heads-over-heels in love with her. Both of them are not making any attempts to hide their love for each other. Don is revealing his true self, buried beneath the multiple personas he had to play on screen. On screen, he is a regal prince. But now, he is just a regular guy, trying to show a girl how much he loves us. For guys like me who have, at some point in their lives, courted a girl, there is real connection right there with Don. While Kathy is hesitant about accepting his love at first, Don, like a gentleman, doesn't pressure her in the least. His nobleness sure paid off then! The emotions displayed on screen are almost palpable, and the sexual tension between them is just sizzling. Even the dance itself, is slow and charged with emotion. It is interesting to note that, this dance wasn't as complicated as the dances in previous numbers. While this may sound a bit cheesy, the flowing movement wasn't so much dancing as the movement of two souls synchronized, one with the other in a moment of almost Zen-like tranquility.The lyrics of the number are simple yet incredibly powerful, and when sung by the talented Kelly, makes it really easy on the ears. In my opinion, this number really moves the plot along by resolving a number of problems, chiefly, by resolving the "girl" and "boy" dilemma, where both are unsure of what the other feels. And last but most definitely not least. . .

Singing In The Rain

Ah, at last. The pièce de résistance of the film. Was the song named after the title? Or the title after the song? The song itself is an enigma. Anyway, the first thing you notice about the song, is how incredibly uplifting the music is, which compliments the previous song (You Were Meant For Me) well, as the song was incredibly emotional. The song itself, manages to capture that child-like wonder we all experience the first time we feel the wonderful rain on our faces. But, the song isn't just about how awesome rain is. It is also about love, that magical moment when you fall in love for the very first time. In fact, this song is, in my opinion, all about firsts and new experiences. The other thing that stands out, is how incredibly happy Don looks while he is singing. It is as though the rain has washed away all his worries and inhibitions, and at that moment, he is no longer an actor nor a dancer nor a singer, he is just Don, doing what he loves the most. In a sense, dancing out in the rain is Don's way of saying, he will do what he thinks is right, without giving a shit about what others might think of him. The song, wonderful though it maybe, ended when he caught sight of a policewoman. The policewoman seems to be a metaphor for the shackles of social norms under which every actor seems to find restricting of their creativity at some point in their career.

My conclusion is, these masterpieces as well as every other number not featured here, were all in the movie for one reason or the other. Every song combined to make the film the legend it now is. This film wouldn't be the same even if one single number were to be taken out. As of today, I'm truly glad I watched this masterpiece of a film and for that matter, I'll make sure my children watch this film at the first chance available as well.