The 2009 Broad Street Film Festival Recap

The Bagpipe article:

http://www.bagpipeonline.com/2009/05/04/broad-street-film-festival-hopes-present-successes-will-lead-to-future-growth/

Bagpipe Photo taken by Chris Thorton at The Tivoli in Downtown Chattanooga, TN 4/25/09
In the photo: (left standing) Drew Belz, Grant Withington, Isaiah Smallman - (seated) Max Belz, Michelle Moore, Nathanael Booth, Rachel Yellen, Asher Payne - (right standing) Susannah Verner, Will Lutz, Ben Withington

For full resolution: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjthornton/3478771106/sizes/l/

Two short video recaps featuring myself and my fellow producers:



and



UPDATE: This article was on Bryan College's website (full list of winners)

http://www.bryan.edu/filmfestival

Interrogation Room

This is an idea I had a couple of months ago. It was filmed in a "secret room" on campus containing only a folding chair and a dangling light bulb. I wrote it with some help from Max Belz (The Inquisitor). James Harrison shot it. We all edited it. And there you have it.

Lie Still, Still Hope

This dark room has become
Too used to pollutants,
Imperfections excused
And then highly esteemed
In a delusional attempt to
Show life.

Pictures that take themselves
Leave you scratching your head,
Minus assumptions and
Too natural for words,
So obvious they have to work hard
To hide.

Revelations of this
Magnitude sit somewhere
In the center of the
Spectrum, separating
Accelerated decrepitude
From sheen.

These new snapshots taken
Used only whatever
Available light could
Be harnessed through the lens;
Our smiling wasn’t even prompted......
Sleep now.

Corporate Love

While these lines have absolutely nothing to do with the people at my workplace or the nature of the work that I do there, I was nonetheless inspired to write them in my office.

CORPORATE LOVE

Today I played the courier to the upper crust.
They were a stodgy crowd, unmoved by my delivery.
It seems the manila tones were all too familiar to them.
From the hardened 1st floor flatfoots
To the 20th story nose bleeds
My tune never wavered.
Note for note I sang true with my instructive instrument.
Their mechanical yawns ground into me unmercifully.
I held back the bitter tears of embarrassment.

But I know their game. They themselves
Classically trained, are breaking me down to build me up.
Secretly bowled over, they stifle their glee at my performance.
"Just what is he made of?" rings their collective inner monologue.
This is the echelon that grooms me for my biggest audience.
They observe me playing with Benjamin Franklin's children
To see if I am playing nice.
Come Christmas, this self-abasement will pay off in spades:
A key to the room where he has no need of being divisible.

Darkest Before The Dawn

I have a tape of a sermon that Dad preached on December 30th, 2007 that I requested upon hearing it from the pulpit in Raleigh, NC. It was something that I especially needed to hear at the time, and I found myself needing to think on these things more and more this past summer. I wrote it out word for word to the best of my ability, to try and keep Dad's speaking style in tact, although so much of his inflection and power in delivery is lost. But the message is there. I hope people reading this blog will have the time to read it in its entirety, and be encouraged. And I also just want to say, Happy Birthday, Dad! I'll see you in 2 days!

We have a saying for it. “It’s always darkest before the dawn.” And like it is with so many other sayings, I wonder why does it have to be that way? “It’s always darkest before the dawn.” We all enjoy the dawn. I’ve had opportunities, if you want to call them that, to look longingly for the dawn to come. One of the times was during my seminary career when I had my calling strengthened by knowing that I was not going to be a night watchman. I had to watch a building in downtown St. Louis overnight, and make sure that some of the things inside it were not stolen because it was in the midst of construction. Just to keep an eye on it. And waited, I remember, through that long night looking at the little light blipping at the top of the St. Louis Arch, and just thinking, “You know, eventually the sun is going to hit that thing and this is going to be over.” Boring comes to mind, but there was just a loneliness about it. No danger, no problem, but just dark, dark. And yet how often we use that to describe much darker, much harder circumstances that we go through. Not a literal night perhaps, but a night of the soul. Darkest. Why is it always darkest before the dawn? We try to bargain with God. We try to tell him, “You know, we promise, honest, we’ll be grateful.” Because the one explanation we ordinarily hear is that when it’s really darkest, then you appreciate the dawn a lot more. You’re much more grateful for it because things have been so bad, then by contrast, now they’re so good, and finally instead of saying, “Oh yes, of course they’re good, we deserve it, and we’re kind of used to it and take it for granted,” now we don’t take it for granted anymore. We’re really thankful, and so we promise the Lord, “That’s ok, you don’t have to make it dark anymore. I’ll be grateful, honest! This time! Just give me one more chance.” But....it continues. We find ourselves in those dark places again from time to time, and wonder still why it is, because actually there are times when it’s been light. We’ve had times in our life when it’s been light, and it’s been good, and it’s been prosperous, and we have been grateful, like Job was. Never do we read in the account about Job that he had not been grateful enough for all the good things that God had done for him. It wasn’t that God needed to get his attention. There’s simply not an explanation for what happened in the book of Job. Job brought sacrifices to the Lord continually, not only for himself but for his children, lest they might have sinned against him. Job was a righteous man. He loved God. And yet, look at the darkness that Job had to undergo. And so do we have to undergo these things? Is the explanation just so that we might appreciate the good things later on when they do come? Enjoy the dawn, enjoy the sun when it finally does rise? It doesn’t wash. Why? Why does it have to be darkest before the dawn? Why is it that all hope, it seems, must be lost before God very often will intervene?

Well, in this account of the death of Lazarus, we have the final sign that is given in the book of John, and it is a sign which is given in the midst of a situation even more hopeless than has heretofore occurred. As we go back through the various signs there was in every case some kind of problem, some kind of distress. In the first case, probably not the most grievous of situations, but it certainly was for the host, who ran out of wine. That first sign that took place, where Jesus turned the water to wine, and a hopeless situation, at least on the social end of things, was resolved. But then we have the second one, again in Cana, the healed official’s son. Then the third one: He healed the invalid at Bethsaida or Bethesda in Jerusalem in chapter 5. There, of course, someone whose prospects of ever even being able to get up and get to the pool were utterly hopeless. And yet, the Lord Jesus intervened. The feeding of the five thousand: absolutely a hopeless task there in chapter 6 back in Galilee. And yet, the Lord fed them all. And immediately after that there would be no prospect of being able to catch up with His disciples, and yet He walked on the water, the fifth sign. It’s after the second sign that they don’t keep track anymore. They say, “This was the first sign: water into wine. The second sign was healing the official’s son,” and then they don’t number them after that, but we do eventually wind up with seven. After the walking on the water we go a couple of chapters to chapter 9. The sixth sign: healing the man who was born blind. And we’re seeing, maybe not a direct, clear, step by step pattern here, but we certainly see a progression from changing water to wine to healing someone who was born blind. Not someone who was blinded. We know of cases where someone got there head jostled and something fell back into place and they were able to see again. This is someone who never had the eyes to see with from birth. A really hopeless situation, and yet the Lord Jesus heals him. He gives him sight. Now we come to the most hopeless situation of all, where someone has died. And eventually, as most of us are familiar with this account, we know that by the time that Jesus does stand before Lazarus’s tomb, and utter those words which cause him to come forth, Lazarus has been in the tomb for four days. He is dead. This is an absolutely hopeless situation. But we have stopped at this point in verse 6 to focus on Jesus’ preparation for this, because we have a problem in Jesus’ reaction to the news that one whom He loves is sick. A problem really so severe that one, modern translation alters the way it literally ought to be translated in verse 3. “It was after saying it was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill, so the sisters sent to Him saying, ‘Lord, he whom you love is ill.’ But when Jesus heard it He said, ‘This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.’” Now, it is between verses 5 and 6 that the problem occurs. “Now, Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, so when he heard that Lazarus was ill He stayed two days longer in the place where He was.” You see the problem? The problem here was so acute that the New International Version translates that saying, “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, yet when He heard that Lazarus was ill He stayed two days longer.” The fact that Jesus decided after hearing that Lazarus was ill, probably to the point of death, He decides to linger a couple of days longer, is so incompatible with the idea that He loves Lazarus that one translator says, “We have to oppose these things somehow. It just doesn’t make sense. We have to make the one clause a concession to the other one, because if He really does love him, we’d have to say, ‘yet, for reasons which we can’t imagine, He decides to linger around for a couple of days before He finally goes and offers the help that He’s been able to give all along.” After all when He does arrive there that’s the first thing that Martha confronts Him with. “If you had been here my brother would not have died.” Of course, we will get to what she says next, and to that glorious, glorious declaration of faith that she makes. But that’s a problem. How is it that He would decide when He had demonstrated the power to heal (they’d seen Him do it), why wouldn’t He come as quickly as possible? Why wouldn’t He do what He did way back in that second miracle, with the healing of the official’s son? Remember, He didn’t even have to go there. All He had to do was declare that the son would be healed, and He was able to tell the man, “Go back, your son is healed.” And so when the man goes back and however long it took him to journey back to his home and he finds that his son has been healed already, and calculates the time at which, as he interviews the people there, the time at which his son rose up from his illness, he says, “That is the very time that I was talking to Jesus.” That was the very time that He said, “Go, your son is healed.” Jesus could have done that. It didn’t matter how far away He was. Well, alright, we understand the problem. Where was Jesus anyway at this point? That’s been a little bit of a puzzle, and it may be that we have a clearer understanding from some more recent study, and archeological discoveries that the region where Jesus had gone, and its referred to just back in the previous verses at the end of chapter 10, when it says, “He went away across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing at first.” We recall all the way back in John 1:28 that this place across the Jordan where John was baptizing, and that was the place where John pointed out Jesus and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God.” “These things took place in Bethany, across the Jordan where John was baptizing.” Bethany across the Jordan. Of course the first question comes to our mind, is this the Bethany where Lazarus, and Martha, and Mary live, which is a little town that is just a couple of miles from Jerusalem. Well, the difficulty there is that that Bethany is not across the Jordan. The Trans-Jordan, across the Jordan, is over to the east side. Jerusalem and Bethany are on the west side of the Jordan. This Bethany, whatever it is, wherever it was, and there still is a difficulty in locating it exactly, this Bethany was across the Jordan. And recent scholarship has theorized that perhaps what is meant here is a region that was called Bethania, which if you spelled it just a little bit differently would sound like Bethany. And it was a whole region that was about a hundred and fifty kilometers away over to the northeast in the Trans-Jordan. So, Jesus would have been between a three and a four day walk away before He could have possibly gotten back to Bethany which is near Jerusalem. And so, this is most likely where Jesus is at the time that He receives this news. We know very little from the Scripture about the relationship that Jesus had with these sisters and their brother. It is told us here, there is a window that speaks of a very dear relationship that had arisen between them. We have a description in Luke of how this whole thing began. In Luke 10 Martha had invited Jesus into their home, and that’s when they first became acquainted with Him. That is the account where Martha is preparing everything and Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus listening to what He teaches. From that time it is apparent that Jesus spent time in that home, and got to know those people, and had come to love them dearly. So when Martha comes and finds Him, she sends this word, “Lazarus, whom you love is ill.” Jesus says, “This illness does not lead to death.” He of course is looking forward and He is giving away the end of the story here, although His disciples don’t yet understand what He means. But He says again as he said about the man who was born blind - notice the parallel there - he was not born blind because of his sin or the sin of his parents, but in order that the glory of God might be displayed in him. And so, in the same way He says here, “It is for the glory of God.” This illness is for the glory of God. This darkness is for the glory of God. This hardship, this tragedy is for the glory of God. So that the Son of God may be glorified through it. Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. John puts that in there that there might be no doubt that Jesus does indeed, not just in Martha’s mind, but He does indeed love Lazarus, and love Mary, and loves Martha. He would have done anything for them. If He would heal one stranger after another who had no human claim on Him, surely He would heal Lazarus. But then we come back to that problematic word there in verse 6. As a result of His love, because He loves them, therefore when He heard that Lazarus was ill He stayed two days longer in the place where He was. Excuse me? Isn’t this the time to put on all haste? Well, let’s take a moment here and go back and see how perhaps the Lord Jesus taking......well, we know that He doesn’t take a page out of anybody else’s play book, just because others came before Him, we know that they were really taking a page out of His.....but we go back to Elijah on Mount Carmel and it just amazes me always when I read that account of just how cool Elijah is. I mean, he’s got 450 prophets of Baal, who obviously have knives and things like that that they’re cutting themselves with, and at any given moment they might all of a sudden decide, “You know what? We could use these knives on Elijah.” But that just doesn’t seem to bother him. He’s making fun of them, because they just can’t manage to get this god who Elijah knows doesn’t even exist, they’re bleeding into the air, to answer. And surely I think most of us, and most modern people today wouldn’t have any difficulty, as long as they didn’t think that the prophets would turn against them, they would probably have the same confidence. Of course no one is going to answer by fire. Fire’s going to come down out of heaven from this god Baal? No, I’m sorry, it’s not going to happen. And so, Elijah was certainly in a pretty good position there. I could be speaking to any crowd of any persuasion, and I think all would agree that Elijah was in a strong position at that point. But then when he turns and he says in that very simple prayer, (no yelling, no screaming, no cutting himself, no running around, but bowing his head and simply praying) “Lord, you are God. Show them.” Then he’s way out on a limb, because he has set it up. He set the stakes awfully high. Now of course, we didn’t read that far, did we? We didn’t read Elijah’s prayer. What we did is we read about what he did before hand. It seemed that he was determined to make the problem even worse. He’s got his bowl and he’s going to soak that bowl. And they soak it once....that’s not enough. He’s going to soak it a second time, and then soak it a third time, soak it so much that the water pours out and fills up this ditch that he’s made around the alter. And by the way, that was not a common thing. They didn’t usually have a ditch like that around the alter, but for this sacrifice you were going to need it. Everything was a mess. It was soaked with water. And after all, there had been a drought for three years. It hadn’t rained for three years. It was really dry. You know what they tell you, “Be careful about any kind of a spark. Anything can start a fire.” So, some little spark hit this bone dry sacrifice and sure, sure everything flew up in flames. Elijah wanted to make sure that didn’t happen. He soaked that sacrifice. We all know what happened. The fire did indeed come down from Heaven. But Elijah was bound and determined, deliberately to make the problem worse, in order that God might be glorified, showing that you can't make it too hard for God. You cannot, even with all of your ingenuity, come up with a problem or with a situation which is too difficult for God. Go ahead, make it worse. Soak the sacrifice. The fire will still come down and will consume it entirely because it is God who is doing it. The same thing happens in Acts 27. We read the account there of Paul on his trip to Rome as a captive. Usually, your ordinary captive doesn't try to give advice to the captain: “Oh, by the way, you might want to hang around. Things are going to get dangerous out there.” And of course the captain reacts as one might ordinarily to a prisoner, and just dismisses what he says. He takes the word of the experts as they get out into the middle of the Mediterranean Sea and they find out that Paul was right. But remember that verse right in the middle when it says, all hope of salvation, all hope of deliverance was abandoned. All hope was lost. And it was at that point that Paul stood up and said, “An angel of the Lord appeared to me, and he said we are all going to be saved.” Now, he has to get it in. I mean, Paul was only human. “You should have listened to me. Told you so.” But God was going to deliver them. He was going to save them.....after all hope was lost. Was that something unique? Was that something different? Look back.

The first time Jesus appeals to this pattern is back in John 3, and He deliberately points it out when He is talking to Nicodemus, and He says, “I thought you were a teacher in Israel. I thought that you understood these things.” And then He mentions the bronze serpent which was raised up in the wilderness. You go back, and you read that account in the book of Numbers. In that account God is angry with the people and so He sends serpents among them, and the serpents bite them. These are deadly serpents. Once you are bitten your death is certain. You have minutes to live. So, all hope, once you have been bitten, is gone. You're dead. It's over. It is too late. And yet after it is too late (not when there is one more chance, but after the last chance is gone) Moses raises the bronze serpent, and those who look to it live, after it’s too late. Jesus points out that pattern. And then we see it throughout the Scripture. After the fruit is eaten, when it's too late, when all is lost, paradise is lost, the promise of the woman's seed is given. After Abraham and Sarah are past childbearing age the promised son is born. After the Israelites are trapped with their face towards the Egyptians and their backs to the Red Sea, after it’s too late, the waters of the sea part. After the people are bitten by the serpents, the bronze serpent is raised. After the armies of Amon and Edom are upon Jehoshaphat, and it’s too late to mount any kind of defense, the Lord says, “You will not fight this battle. The battle is the Lord's.” Or when the armies of Assyria surrounded Hezekiah, and all hope of deliverance is futile, God did deliver. And indeed, now we see, after the greatest civilization of the ancient world, the only truly worldwide empire that history would ever know, had quietly spelled its own doom by conferring the title 'Augustus' upon its emperor Octavian, declaring Caesar to be God, the son of God and Savior (Augustus marks the turning point, his own reign marks the high point of the civilization of Rome, and it begins to decline. It is to last for a few more hundred years, but it is on its way out at that point), at that point in the years of Caesar Augustus, a child is born. A son is given, and the government would be upon His shoulders. This is the pattern that the Lord has used all the way through the Scriptures. Because He loves those whom He has determined to save, it becomes darkest before the dawn. We see why it is that when Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, therefore so, He determined to delay in order that God might be glorified, in order that He might be glorified, and in order that the sign might be given: “This is the salvation that I have come to bring. I will save sinners from the very worst.” He is showing that it doesn't matter how bad it gets. It doesn't matter how deep the pit is. It doesn't matter how great the disaster is. It doesn't matter that all ordinary hope is entirely gone. It’s not just those who are sick, where Jesus can intervene and can keep them from dying. It is those who actually have died and who are beginning to decay that Jesus can and will save. What had to be demonstrated is that the last enemy, the most powerful enemy, the most implacable enemy, the enemy that no one, no one, no one beats: Death itself would fall before this Son of God.

And so, because the Lord loves you, sometime takes you through dark nights to show you, yes, that He will never leave you or forsake you even in the midst of that night, but also that He always will, no matter how dark it becomes, He will always bring the dawn. You need some application? Believe it.

The Opener

I posted this on Facebook for the Covenant College Film Club, but for those who can't access it due to anti-Facebook sentiments (namely Drew), I am posting it here too.

Opening Scenes: They Are Important
By: Grant Withington

Your opening scene, much like the opening sentences of such great novels as Anna Karenina and David Copperfield, must be solitarily striking. An intentional, direct statement that is confidently set before the viewer demands attention. If you can rope an audience in right off the bat, you won’t have to work as hard at winning them over during the course of your movie due to a poor start. By establishing a solid opening sequence you automatically establish the audience’s trust, and even if the rest of your movie is not as good as your introduction (which hopefully is not the case) you will have an easier time holding their interest because they will know that they are in capable hands. The opening scene is also important because it is a chance for you to make a thesis statement that says what the main themes of your film are. A filmmaker who can sum up what the entire story is about in a matter of the first three or four minutes of screen time (give or take a few) is someone who knows what he or she is doing, and in most cases you can rest assured that the rest of the film will follow suit both in terms of being concise and precise. To pull this off the scene must be terrifically written. Top notch writing is essential. You do not have time to ease your audience into brilliance. They need to be smacked in the face with genius immediately. You want those first frames to be some of the most memorable from the entire film, if not the most memorable. The goal of the opening scene should be to make it impossible for anyone to stop watching your movie. It needs to make them want to watch more.

Here are fifteen examples of what I am describing. They are helpful in showing how such a feat is effectively executed.

1. Manhattan (Written and Directed by Woody Allen)
2. Adaptation (Written by Charlie Kaufman, Directed by Spike Jonze)
3. Magnolia (Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson)
4. Vanilla Sky (Written and Directed by Cameron Crowe)
5. Match Point (Written and Directed by Woody Allen)
6. American Psycho (Written by Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner,
Directed by Mary Harron)
7. 8 ½ (Written by Federico Fellini, Ennio Flaiano, Tullio Pinelli, and Brunello Rondi,
Directed by Federico Fellini)
8. Annie Hall (Written and Directed by Woody Allen)
9. Blood Simple (Written and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen)
10. Citizen Kane (Written by Orson Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz,
Directed by Orson Welles)
11. High Fidelity (Written by D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, John Cusack, and Scott Rosenberg,
Directed by Stephen Frears)
12. Touch of Evil (Written and Directed by Orson Welles)
13. The Player (Written by Michael Tolkin, Directed by Robert Altman)
14. Stranger Than Fiction (Written by Zach Helm, Directed by Marc Forster)
15. Trainspotting (Written by John Hodge, Directed by Danny Boyle)

Manhattan (1979)
If you are going to make a movie entitled Manhattan, what better way to open than to unabashedly show how magnificent a place it is through a shot sequence comprised of nothing but the city itself? Allen shot the film in black and white to give it a classic, somewhat timeless feel. His picture is backed by Gerswin's Rhapsody in Blue adding to its nostalgic quality. Finally, his use of voice-over not only lets the audience know that this film is a comedy, but informs them of the kind of a person his main character is. The opening serves as both a spectacular tribute to Manhattan Island and an indicator of what the tone of the piece will be.



Adaptation (2002)
Adaptation uses the titles sequence to orient the viewer with the mind of the main character. The simple use of a well written monologue (softly spoken over a black screen with small typewriter font credits at the bottom of the frame) sticks in the viewer’s head. While Kaufman repeatedly talks to himself in this fashion throughout the film, this opening is probably the most immediately memorable. This method also shows that the focus of the film is on the craft of writing, and draws attention to that by shining the spotlight on the monologue itself. It is a film about screenwriting and therefore the first sentences must be superb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLLihqJ22Vo&feature=related

Magnolia (1999)
The opening sequence should in a way prophesy about what kind of film you are about to see. Magnolia's preface is six minutes long. During this time none of the main characters are introduced, nor are any of the story lines that are to follow. It is there purely to present the main theme of the movie. It is a thesis statement that says, “This is a film about Chance vs. Providence.” If it seems a little self-indulgent for an introduction to run so long, the film's three hour running time will likely feel the same. But for those who enjoy Anderson's full throttle style, this introduction perfectly prepares the audience for the incredible events that transpire later in the film which might otherwise have been difficult to accept. Despite its length, this narration flows so smoothly that it feels shorter than it actually is.



Vanilla Sky (2001)
Sometimes you might want to 'wow' your audience with an opening that contains almost too good of a visual idea. Cameron Crowe does this in Vanilla Sky by shooting Tom Cruise running through an empty Times Square in the opening dream sequence. While this stunt calls attention to itself and initially caused everyone to say, “How did they do that?” somewhat taking the audience out of the narrative, it effectively communicates everything we need to know about the main character's mental state. The thesis statement is clearly stated in this first section. Not only is the Times Square sequence a mind-blowing visual stunt, it tells the audience a valuable piece of information and doesn't compromise the integrity of the film with what otherwise could have been interpreted as cheap gimmickry.



Match Point (2005)
Once again Woody Allen shows his abundant skill through his minimalism. With a single shot, a concise monologue, and less than a minute of screen time he has clearly stated what this entire film is about.



American Psycho (2000)
As seen in Adaptation and Trainspotting, a well written monologue given in the first person can be personalized and therefore easier for an audience to relate to. There is a personal connection that is made between the main character and the viewer. These monologues are the ones that turn such films into cult classics with many fans memorizing them. They also generally start a film off for maximum potency. The monologue here gives us a feel for the character himself, but also foreshadows the entire thrust of the social commentary that the film embodies in more detail later. Acting as a springboard it tells what the movie will show.



8 ½ (1963)
Here is an opening that uses almost no dialogue but tells us a great deal about the main character and the overarching theme of the film through its pure use of visuals. Everything in the dream sequence represents something that will be fleshed out in the future, much like the opening dream sequence in Vanilla Sky. It is so simultaneously disorienting and distinct that it grips the viewer immediately, and makes them want to figure out what the symbolism represents.



Annie Hall (1977)
Having a character look directly at the camera and speak to the audience (breaking down the third wall, as they say) is a fairly common practice in motion pictures now. It is a bold move declaring that the writer has the utmost confidence that his opinions and general outlook on life warrant the attention and respect of everyone watching. Allen was one of the pioneers of this method in Annie Hall, and few have put it to better use.



Blood Simple (1984)
The establishing shots that would normally be reserved for an opening credits sequence are used to create an eerie mood by showing us stark Texas landscapes, and then to reinforce the feeling of desolation, the writers/filmmakers implement a short and sweet monologue delivered by one of the film's antagonists. In one minute the film's ideology has been cemented. The Coens used this same method again with similar results in No Country For Old Men twenty four years later.



Citizen Kane (1941)
Citizen Kane's opening is so densely layered with symbolism that it is hard to neatly pick it apart. But it does make sense in light of the film that is to follow. For the most part, the questions that the opening raises will be answered, and any ambiguity that remains is intentional. This introduction, like the rest of the picture, begs for dissection. It is technically and aesthetically intriguing, and grips the viewer with its foreboding quality.



High Fidelity (2000)
Simplicity once again sets the tone of the piece with unexpected firmness. The vinyl record spinning on the record player is the first indicator that pop music will play a significant role in the film. The second is of course the main character staring into the camera (as in Annie Hall) stating his sentiments on pop music as it, in his opinion, connects with the human heart. A strong beginning that is both brief and blatant.



Touch of Evil (1958)
With the example of Citizen Kane it is obvious that Orson Welles considered the first frames of a film to be of the utmost importance. Here is another classic example of his dedication to detail and seemingly effortless ability to pull off the most elaborate and difficult shots. He starts off Touch of Evil with a tracking shot that is still talked about today as one of the most memorable moments in cinematic history. The suspense it creates is immediately palpable, and the viewer is hooked in no time.



The Player (1992)
Robert Altman's dark satire on the Hollywood system constantly references old films as well as current ones. These films are mentioned by name in many instances, but they are sometimes paid tribute to in the actual style of the filmmaking. The opening tracking shot is an obvious homage to Touch of Evil. If this was not evident to the audience, one of the characters in the shot discusses the tracking shot and how Orson Welles used it in that exact film. This tongue in cheek humor is out of the ordinary and therefore peaks the curiosity of the audience. Altman also uses this shot to introduce the world that we are entering and the main characters that inhabit it.



Stranger Than Fiction (2006)
The monologue that begins Stranger Than Fiction serves the same purpose as the one in American Psycho, only it is told in the third person. It is yet another example of first rate writing that is nicely complimented with inventive visuals. The protagonist is well outlined and the pacing and feel of the film are firmly planted in three minutes.



Trainspotting (1996)
The irreverent monologue that the main character in Trainspotting delivers is an infectious rant that is hard not to sympathize with, which is the goal of the filmmaker and screenwriter. They want you to agree with this broad opinion so that you will be on the side of Renton's character no matter what turns the narrative takes during the course of the film. His self-proclaimed sensibilities make you understand why he justifies heroin use. Even though the film's ultimate end is to show that heroin use is simply a delusion to escape another state of delusion, this is not the goal of the opening segment. This opening is fast, exciting, and deceitfully empowering. It works.



Other gripping introduction scenes that are worth looking at:

The Godfather (Written by Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo,
Directed by Francis Ford Coppola)
Goodfellas (Written by Martin Scorsese and Nicholas Pileggi, Directed by Martin Scorsese)
Pulp Fiction (Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino)
Reservoir Dogs (Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino)
The Dark Knight (Written by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, Directed by Christopher Nolan)
The Big Lebowski (Written and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (Written by Lawrence Kasdan, Directed by Steven Spielberg)
Jerry Maguire (Written and Directed by Cameron Crowe)
Full Metal Jacket (Written by Stanley Kubrick, Michael Herr, and Gustav Hasford,
Directed by Stanley Kubrick)
Raising Arizona (Written and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen)

Goodnight, Void

Tie red
Red tie
Tired
Retiring......