End of Year Reflection

Researching topics this year was hit and miss. For some assignments, like the independent research script, I managed to find a lot of information on at least one of the films involved, and found adequate sources. For my short films, research was much spottier. Some films had no research attached to them, others had only a little, and there were hardly any posts, and the rest had just enough information and research. I suppose the problem for me is finding the information in the first place. One thing I'll really need help with is figuring out how to find the correct information on the internet reliably, without having to sift through piles of junk because I don't know the key words to search for. Next year, what might help new students is a bit more practice using tools like Ebscohost, and more importantly how to find reliable information without it, so it doesn't become a crutch.

The oral presentation for Psycho was tricky. On one hand, I was able to actually do the presentation well enough, without tripping over too many words, and managed to cover nearly every subject. On the other hand, my research was very last minute, and I'm not going to deny it. Next year, I plan on taking a much more active approach in finding information for my oral presentation, and making sure I know what I'm talking about. Something that might help is some instruction on how to use film language correctly and in a context that doesn't make it sound forced, which is how I sometimes felt during the oral presentation.

I would not be able to accurately sum up just how well I did in every short film, because that performance varies greatly. I found that I was much more comfortable directing and/or writing during the film process, although I really need to narrow down my concepts. I love cinematography, but until I get enough experience (or a camera that's easier for me to use, personally) I won't be able to feel comfortable being that role. Editing is something I really need to know how to do efficiently  since I don't think I've been able to edit for any of the films this year, except maybe my trailer for Come Back, which was very last minute. Next year, having a bit more advice on how to edit correctly might be necessary if I'm going to edit well at all.

Ideas Shown in City of God

Here’s a random article: http://brianair.wordpress.com/film-analysis/city-of-god/

Here’s a random summary:

After summarizing the complicated plot of City of God, the writer of the article presents numerous different theories that could be used to interpret the film. He talks about montage editing, the use of a homodiegetic narrator (Rocket), along with others, and discusses how it applies to the film. Some of the theories mentioned include Todorov’s Theory of equilibrium, “of an equilibrium, followed by a disequilibrium, then a new equilibrium”. Among others mentioned were Roland Barthe’s theories of action and enigma (L’il Ze’s massacre) and Claude Levi-Strauss’ theory of binary opposites (the slums and mainstream Rio), to name a few.

The next section talks about the main characters and what they represent within the film. Rocket represents a middle ground between good and evil, and of escape, while on the other hand L’il Ze symbolizes hopelessness with his crimes. The writer goes on to discuss the roles of Bene, Carrot, the Tender Trio, and the women in City of God.

The last section discusses the ideology of the film, “the wish for social change”, which is expressed through the violence that permeates the slums of Rio and corrupts its people. The film ends on a positive note but also with a negative one, with the younger children taking up the mantle of violence. The writer concludes the piece with a mention of how the film became so popular, first through the film festivals and then through Miramax.

Out of all of the things discussed in the article, what I find most relevant to the research I am doing is the role of violence and crime, especially within the cities. Also important were the numerous film theories used to describe the film, which I can imagine will become useful when comparing City of God to a second film.

The History of Brazilian Cinema

I suppose today is as good a day as any to randomly summarize the history of Brazilian cinema as written by a film reference site, divided into sections.

The first section discusses the early days of Brazilian cinema in the early 1900s, in which “Brazilian films dominated the domestic market, and documentaries and newsreels constituted the most important filmic productions.” The choice in production was influenced by the beginning industrialization and urbanization of Brazil, when cinema was just beginning to become an industry. However, as the Hollywood industry began to encroach upon international markets, “The technical expertise and slick production values of Hollywood movies were regarded as the standard, and it served to discourage indigenous filmmaking.” The beginning era died, but films continued to be made either way.

The second section talks about the period following this, during the years of the Great Depression in which Hollywood continued to reign over the film industry. Films made in Brazil during this era were largely influenced by Hollywood, attempting to copy its style while at the same time remaining rooted in Brazilian tradition, like the chanchadas, “musical comedies inspired by Hollywood musicals but rooted in the Brazilian carnival and burlesque theater.” During this time several director specific film companies were established, like Atlântida in 1943. Most important of these companies was the Vera Cruz company. “For the first time, Brazilian cinema would be internationally distributed, with quality films and a consolidated internal market.” However, it failed later on, being overambitious for still developing Brazil.

The next section “Cinema Novo” contains a much more detailed analysis of the historical context of the 1960s. It talks about how new social thought influenced the ideas shown in Brazilian cinema, along with techniques used. Along with the new authoritarian regimes, the film industry in Brazil was deciding on a shift from the studio system, which was too expensive for the developing economy at the time. “Film journals and cine clubs fostered a critique of Brazilian cinema and a debate about whether to build a strong film industry with state support or to pursue a low-cost production system that would encourage experimentation.” The article then talks about the filming styles adopted during this period, along with the subject matter, which often involved the lower classes. Cinema Novo was limited, however, by its attempt to combine appeal to the masses and attracting political awareness. In addition, Brazilian films rarely appealed to those outside intellectual circles and the “festival circuit”. Also, this section discusses the work of a specific director, Carlos Diegues.

The next two sections go into great detail concerning the three phases of Cinema Novo. The first phase “was a formative period dominated by a sense of political urgency aptly captured by neorealist, documentary-style narratives that went out to the streets to film popular subjects.” Many films of made during this phase focused on the theme of hunger, and its connection to Brazilian culture. The first phase ended with the coup of 1964, and the second phase, despite being surrounded by military control, still flourished due to the industry being sponsored by the state, which provided equipment and funding. The section after this focuses on the third phase of Cinema Novo. “The year 1968 fragmented the artistic milieu and nurtured the emergence of new aesthetic strategies of resistance: cannibalism, Tropicalism, and the aesthetics of garbage dominated the third phase of Cinema Novo. Cannibalism was a rebellion against imperialist values, while tropicalism “rendered patriarchal, traditional cultures anachronistic using the most advanced or fashionable idioms and techniques in the world, thus producing an allegory of Brazil that exposed a real historical abyss, a junction of different stages of capitalist development.” It rejected the support of the authoritarian regime and the censorship it provided, and some filmmakers at the time were against state support altogether.

The last section summarizes the evolution of Brazilian cinema following the 1960s. Various administrations veered from supporting the film industry to cutting off support altogether, which was the case with Fernando Collor de Mello. Women filmmakers became more prevalent, and the film industry attempted to integrate with globalization, facing its problems. “One of the most obvious strategies to confront the effects of globalization is to obtain financial support from abroad, either in the form of coproductions or by securing a film's international distribution.” The article then finishes off with a list of the names of movies that tried adapting to an international audience, and films that stuck to Brazilian issues.

City of God: Cinematic Portrayal of Violence

The article “Violence in The City of God: The Fantasy of the Omniscient Spectator” written by Jennie Carlsten examines the usage of violence in City of God and how it is influenced by the narrative, the cinematography, the acting, the genre, etc.

In the first section of the article Carlsten writes about the setting of the movie, the slums of Rio de Janeiro, and how violence encompasses it through various mediums; for example, historically. “Brazil, and Rio in particular, suffers from particularly pervasive and institutionalized forms of violence: gang warfare, military brutality, and police corruption.” Carlsten is giving some historical background to the violence shown throughout City of God, and how that violence is grounded in reality. The favela, being the set for the majority of the film, is notorious for this, and Carlsten describes how this is shown through the cinematography; “Shots through gaps and from under objects are reminiscent of war footage and position subjects as if sniper targets, particularly in the later segments of the film.” Basically, the favela is given its violent qualities through manipulation of camera angles and positioning. When filming something in such a way, you give the set a constricted feeling.

In addition to the usual connotations associated with violence, Carlsten describes City of God as “plagued by economic as well as physical violence.” Along with gunfights, murder, and numerous other heinous acts, Carlsten describes how conditions in the slum forces individuals to resort to violence in order to stay alive and earn a living. Carlsten also makes an interesting observation of the use of Rocket’s camera being another form of violence, for example during the scene of City of God when Rocket is pinned between the police and the gangsters. “The editing of the sequence suggests not only that Rocket survives by 'shooting' the others, but that he is directly responsible for the deaths of those shot by real bullets.” In saying this, Carlsten implies that through the editing of the scenes themselves Meirelles gives concepts violent connotations.

Carlsten then discusses in more detail the motivations for the violence inherent in City of God. “Motives are suggested - evilness, vengeance, territorialism, animal instinct, initiation, and self-definition but none seem adequate to explain the omnipresence of violence in the favela.” Carlsten is suggesting that in terms of themes and narrative, there is no one reason for the violence present. By giving so many different motives Meirelles makes the true motivation ambiguous.  The writer of this article also makes a comparison to the Wild West in the United State, mentioning it in order to discuss how the film subverts the audiences’ expectations of the “good” characters, like in the following quote. “Audience expectations of the Western hero (like the 'good man' turned vigilante found in so many action films) may lead viewers to sympathize with Ned, judging his violence as less excessive than L'il Ze's. Meirelles problematizes this identification by showing the escalating nature of Ned's violence.” After discussing some of the more complex qualities of the violence in City of God, such as territoriality and its generational qualities, Carlsten moves on to the character of L’il Ze. “The uncertainty the film expresses towards the justification of violence is most profound in its treatment of L'il Ze”. In later parts of the movie, L’il Ze, instead of being characterized as a universal bad guy, is shown in a more sympathetic light when Benny is killed. Even though Ze kills indiscriminately, the audience knows that he has a kind of motive as well to do the things he does.

The second to last section of the article talks about the movies portrayal of alternatives to violence. Sports, for example, is shown as an escape for the children of the favela, only to be literally shot out of the sky. The story of the Tender Trio is also told to give perspective into the true feelings of people who use violence on others. Most importantly, Carlsten discusses Rocket’s attempts to escape the violence. “His ability to produce and frame its images for outsiders means that Rocket is dependent upon violence for his livelihood.” Rocket, by using photography to try and escape, is inevitably drawn back and becomes a critical component of the violence occurring in the favela.

The last section of the article discusses a major technique that Meirelles uses to film City of God. “The use of long shots and off-screen space prevents the audience from seeing much of the violence, and deprives the viewer of the catharsis that may be produced by seeing a violent act carried to its conclusion.” In effect, by not showing the action of the event, the audience is asked to imagine what is occurring, forcing the audience to take their own perspective. To really sum up the article, all of the components of the film have some hand in creating the violence in City of God, from the camera work to the audience itself.

Genre Research

The concept for my short film, still untitled, will be a mystery with a focus on horror. I’m mainly influenced by two films, The Crazies and Super 8.

The kind of narrative I want in my own film is one where you don’t truly understand everything in the end, and some things are left ambiguous, like in Super 8 with the “antagonist”. The acting would be centered around trying to understand the conflict they are involved in, and fear of the unknown. The mood of the dialogue would be influenced by that as well. The characters would be normal, none of them particularly exceptional or special.

The settings would resemble a small town and its outskirts, with forests (mainly their edges or clearings) and the inside of houses, mainly in darkness. Interspersed at some point, perhaps the beginning or after the first rising action, there would be shots showcasing the wider setting. Lighting in buildings would be dark, with the lights offering little relief, to better highlight feelings of the unknown. Outside, the scenes would mostly be filmed at dawn (or during overcast) or at dusk, to give everything a forlorn/mysterious kind of look.

Sound effects wouldn’t be focused on, however the score would have much attention put to it. The music would exemplify moments of horror or realization, and would also be used during scenes of particular suspense.

I noticed that I haven’t even described the plot of my movie or even a synopsis. Well, here’s something: Facsimiles of the recently deceased are appearing out of forest and seeking the townsfolk, and several kids go on a quest to discover why, and perhaps stop it.

Oral Presentation

Alright then, it's time to move away from monotonous analysis posts and towards reviewing my own presentation. Yikes. Alright, so I decided I would put myself at a straight 16. I tried staying away from doing a shot by shot analysis of the entire extract, but I still started rambling on about certain points, and veering into new ones. I managed to stick to the general structure even though it wasn't required, and it helped in staying organized. I believe I had a clear reasoning for why the extract was chosen, although I could've made this clearer in the beginning. A major flaw in my presentation was my lack of film language. I was stuck between using film language gratuitously and not using it at all, and tried to put in the bare minimum. I wanted to avoid using film language in the wrong context. I think I had a good enough understanding of historical context and context in regards to Hitchcock. In summary, while I focused much on context, my actual analysis of the extract was lacking in detail.

Film Language and Representation

My chosen extract for my oral assessment is the parlor scene from Psycho, in which Norman Bates and Marion Crane discuss their lives and in particular Bates’s mother. Norman’s mental issues are represented by the shadows around him and the tone in his voice as he discusses his mother’s condition. It’s a conversational scene, so the two actors’ performances are very casual, and gradually getting more awkward as the conversation moves towards more sensitive subjects.

The way in which the camera is looking down on Marion at some points exemplifies the hostility evident in Norman Bates when his mother is mentioned. The camera doesn’t actually move during this scene because of its conversational nature. In addition to this, the camera is at an average distance from both actors, giving the audience the point of view of someone taking part in the conversation.

All in all, the scene doesn’t really stand out in terms of camera work, but it still has a noticeable impact on the mood.

By making the PoV of the camera like that of a person, the audience shares in the awkwardness and tension inherent in the conversation. The entire set is designed with this in mind, with everything seeming enclosed, with several stuffed birds looming over the two characters.

These birds, in fact, connect to a very common theme in Hitchcock’s films and in Psycho in particular. The birds symbolize danger and looming threats, in this case Norman’s unstable mind.

There isn’t much to be said about editing, since in a conversational scene like this there isn’t much need for any special kind of editing; it’s simply back and forth shots between Bates and Marion. However, lighting plays a much more important role, although its meaning could be disputed. For example, the singular lighting in the scene, a lamp, casts a sharp light on Norman Bates’s face. This could symbolize his two halves, one of which is a very dark individual; on the other hand, it could just be a coincidental effect of the lighting. 

In summary, the main perception you get from the parlor scene is one of tension, of hitting upon a critical secret that has only barely been illuminated. As we discover shortly after this scene, this is exactly the case.