"Welcome, or No Trespassing (1964)" Movie Review Essay & Film Analysis

There is a book in 1964, called 'Made in Hollywood' by Kartseva Elena, it tells of the US film industry which is in private hands, that the purpose of private film companies - a profit and promoting the right ideas
in particular., it says about this moment that the film society is opposed to 'hero': for example, Tarzan, or anyone else in his place is at war one with a lot of 'enemies', who are mostly 'is not the Americans', and negros, Chinese, Indians, and so on. That is, the cult of individualism promoted:. One against all
A similar picture can be seen in modern Russian and foreign films: a lone hero against the whole of society: all the films of 'super heroes', for example, the same Rambo and so on.
in the movie 'Welcome, or no Trespassing "I also saw the opposition Bones Inochkin all the staff, and not only the staff: in the camp, all eyes on him, for the children from the village, he, too,' idol '. This is evident in the beginning of the film, and at the end, especially in the final stage, where the individual Kostya Inochkin 'flies' to the other side, not caring if I may say so, to its staff, leaving him and not the other way around, staying with him. After his grandmother 'flies' to the same, and so the two sides created: staff and Kostya with his grandmother
second.. Show girls who are painted as a woman known behavior, try to behave like these women or, in extreme cases, mannered, and the authors of the film is not condemned, but only shows (read - approved means). What does it lead? Besides that watching people, girls see that it is 'normal' and, if such it was, in reality, but it was in a limited number, and condemned, perhaps, the people, then, seeing it on the screen without being judgmental (read - with the approval of ) more girls will repeat these abominations.
Remember the scene where the children watched motion picture and they are worried about the characters? But they'll probably think if the next story was repeated for those who are seen on the screen. If they are not blocked the scene with soliciting, they would and it sought to reiterate that in our time and make the kids watching TV (including the 'children's' channels), played enough in the GTA from an early age, where 'this' not only complete, but it has a more explicit form, and so on.
third. About a boy who asks: 'What are you doing here?'. Well, what can I say? An example of education in children, and in the parents, selfishness towards others, suggestion of thought that there are people 'defective'.
this boy all persecuted. For what? Just because you ask? One gets the impression from watching, that this boy was born 'so' that its all being driven - the scapegoat. And it does so? No. This whim of the authors.
When, at the end of the film, the boy asked his bones, and his grandmother, what they do, then I got the impression that my grandmother, too, it will send to hell. However, I was surprised to hear that she said okay.
fourth. Bare behinds at the beginning of the film. What for? What for? I do not understand. That's funny? This is stupid. And show the picture of the children in the camp - they will then unabashedly show their behinds all inspired by the picture
I want to say about the fact that the film makes fun of the army order.. It's good. I think that what is shown in the movie was not, the authors exaggerate, but I think that someone has applied to work in the camp is very strict, dry, pedantic when doing so, as it is written, not fantasizing without trying new things. It is difficult to say at that time I had not lived.

How to cite this essay: