Realism, Classicism, and Formalism

Realism: Utilizes sequence shots or edits, includes long, lengthy takes

2001: A Space Odyssey

The majority of the scenes in this film are very lengthy and consist of very few shots in general. While the scenes in which humans interact may not be considered realistic in the same sense, scenes set in deep space or during the rising of the sun, or even when humans/chimpanzees encounter the monolith are still shots, with no movement of the camera itself, and there is no cutting in order to impress a message or mood upon the viewer. The viewer may find the scenes extremely boring, creepy, or even calming, depending on their perspective.

The edit, as previously stated, involves little cutting during shots of outer space, while there is a somewhat normal amount of cutting in conversation scenes. The scenes shot of outer space are lengthy in order to give the viewer a sense of scale and, well, realism. With fast cutting, the viewer can't get an accurate impression of the scale of outer space.

The narrative, like the editing itself, is long-term, and takes place over millennia. The editing, in a way, contributes to the narrative by emphasizing the time scales involved with the story. The long shots correspond with the large amount of time passing.

Classicism: Cutting to continuity, gives the illusion of time passing, involves cutting for dramatic effect

Fight Club

This film is relatively continuous in terms of time passing. There are multiple flashbacks, but they don't get so complex that they confuse the viewer's sense of the general time flow.  It uses a mixture of all kinds of shots, not just close-ups or long-shots. The cutting in the film is what one would most likely call 'classic' or 'average' other than some of the montages that occur. The film respects continuity and uses flashbacks in a way that twists one's perspective of the story at every moment.

The story utilizes continuity to give the viewer the illusion of knowing what's going on, only to use flashbacks in order to show the reality of what has occurred throughout the movie. While this may be considered formalist, the editing leading up to this moment is for the most part classicist and follows the norm.

Formalism

Pulp Fiction 



To call Pulp Fiction a formalist film can be considered a bit of a stretch. However, certain aspects of the editing of the story as a whole contribute to the idea that the editing plays a part in impressing the theme of the film upon the viewer. The above scene is one of at least two scenes in the film that is repeated from different perspectives. The first time, it cuts from the man being shot to what might appear to the viewer to be the aftermath. However, later in the film this scene takes place, another perspective of the first scene that shows what actually occurred after the man is executed. In between, the story veers between multiple stories, all of which take place at different points in time.The entire film seems to be a sort of message about the fragility of life and the presence of coincidences and miracles in the everyday, and the editing supports this by showing a 'normal' situation in the beginning, the next few sections having to do with close-calls or sudden deaths, and the last section involves a close escape as a result of the first situation.

Contemporary Media Analysis

What does the media say about the world that we live in?

From what can be seen, there seems to be a great interest in media that deal with more realistic and/or darker aspects of life. With the passage of time comes a growing amount of movies and television shows with less idealistic characters, like Walter White in Breaking Bad and his quest to earn money to treat his cancer and give to his family through dealing in meth, or Under the Dome, in which the protagonist locks his girlfriend in a bunker to protect her from the conflict of the show. Other subjects such as the blurred lines of good and evil and the prevalence of violence in the media points to a world where the public doesn't necessarily want to see a perfect vision of reality anymore. While this is only speculation (although I have a feeling there have been discussions about this in the past), one could look at the ever-increasing connectivity of humanity through the Internet and thus a greater exposure to the realities of subjects such as crime, war, basically senseless violence, which leads the public to want to see this more realistic view shown in the media. Unlike decades before, it’s rather difficult to escape hearing of horrific events when the Internet is around.

Do you notice any one trend that keeps resurfacing through multiple media forms?

As mentioned above, the primary trend going on in the media today is a move away from idealism, the perfect hero and the purely evil villain, and clear-cut answers to every conflict. It’s a trend that encompasses multiple aspects of the media that are changing even now. To go into more detail, using one example:

The grey area between good and evil. Several movies and TV shows exemplify this theme, and it's becoming much more common. Some of the more well-known examples include Breaking Bad or Under the Dome as mentioned above, but there are several others. A notable example is Game of Thrones. This TV series almost flouts the idea that no character is completely good or evil; everyone is doing good in their own eyes despite the atrocities they commit. And the one person that does try to do the right thing, well, he gets executed by the end of the first season.

Even then, that doesn't make 'the right thing' something to be admired. 

What do you see as the best and worst of what media portrays?

Well, that's a difficult question to pin down. If by 'best' you mean TV shows where the hero wins in the face of adversity, movies where good triumphs over evil, and news stories where Good Samaritans helps others out of the good of their hearts, well, there's still quite a bit of that. I don't believe there will ever be a point in time where there will be an absence of films where the good guys win because of the goodness derived from human nature, or love, etc. But I don't believe the media will ever revert back to the time when shows like Superman portray a perfect human being who does no wrong.

As for the worst, well, there's plenty of that too. The media these days especially loves to report on school shootings, mass murders, horrifying ambushes in other countries, and in general the worst humanity has to offer. Most of the time, it's for the ratings. It gets viewers. But it also changes our perception of the more, shifts it into a much more negative light. 

Where do you see yourself contributing to the conversation?

I hate that term but I'll roll with it this time. As far as the conversation goes, whenever I picture myself speaking up about this I think about how our society puts taboos on certain subjects that are put on TV, like sexuality. Or perhaps that's the only subject that's seriously taboo here. Either way, I see myself debating about subjects such as that, whether it's right to have gruesome, gory murder scenes in crime shows and *cough* Game of Thrones. Although that show does have a lot of sexuality. EITHER WAY, that's what I see myself talking about, in addition to talking about the news media, and how it exaggerates horrifying stories, ONLY reports horrifying stories, to add to the paranoia of the American public and thus encourage us to watch more horrible news stories. That's all I have to talk about.

Also, sorry about the black highlighting. Blogger has horrible formatting.

Top 5 Favorite Films

I just want to start off with saying that my movie history is extremely limited. I’ve been metaphorically slapped for not watching certain films more times than I can count. I’ve watched enough films, however, to have a top 5 list of my favorite films and be satisfied with it.

Note: These aren’t arranged in order of watchability.

1. Fight Club

After hearing about it around fifteen thousand times from my friends, I actually had the chance to watch it for myself. I was not disappointed. Even now I’m sure I could watch that movie over again and again, it was just so darn GOOD. It wasn’t just the bloody action and occasional slow motion either. The lighting of the entire film gave it an atmosphere that perfectly fit the character’s actions and their personalities. And speaking of the personalities, the conflict between Norton and his counterpart really spoke to me on a deeper level, and I’m not trying to be cheesy when I say that. Welp. Either way, I felt like the conflict between them felt like one of the most natural I've ever seen.

2. Signs

Ever since watching this movie as a child I wanted to get a physical copy, and when I managed to get one a few years later, I realized that I still loved the film just as much as I did as a kid. It never struck me as cheesy or badly done. The horror elements that were played out were executed very well, even though quite a few were jump scares. Like with Fight Club, the relationships between the family felt very real to me, and that allows me to watch it many times. The soundtrack, too, added to the tone of the movie and gave the intense moments an even better touch.

3. Inception

As soon as I saw the debut trailer for this film I knew I was going to love it. For once, a film about a medium in which anything is possible, the world of dreams. Also, a kicking rad soundtrack. Numerous things made this film one of my favorite films of all time. The fight scenes were fairly decent for Nolan, and the usage of the soundtrack in conjunction with the action scenes was perfect, and had me riveted to my seat the first time I watched it. Later, it was the story that caught me, with the deeper story of Cobb when examined a second time. 

4. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Ah, yes, this film. The film that I watched for the first time from the side while talking to a friend for the entire 3 hours. And yet I still managed to understand the plot. Being a mad science fiction fan with every single book and almost every movie he owns being sci-fi, this film might seem like an obvious choice. I’ll be completely honest, though, the 3 hours IS an easy way to fall asleep, no doubt about it. It’s a silent movie, with a lot of space, literally. But it’s a film with one of the most realistic depictions of space travel and physics that I have ever seen, and I’ve seen quite a few science fiction films. The plot, while very...very...well, while very DRAWN OUT, is very powerful when one really pays attention. For someone like me, that made the film extraordinary.

5. Hot Fuzz

Hot Fuzz. I had only heard of Shaun of the Dead recently, and I had no idea what Hot Fuzz was at that time. All I knew was that they were related, and that many people loved them. It wasn't until I watched both that I understood why, but Hot Fuzz was the film that stood out to me. It had a take on violence, humor, and plot twists that I had rarely seen in any film before it. Maybe that shouldn't be surprising since it's British, and thus should be different to some degree, but it was still a breath of fresh air. 

What makes a great film?

A for Effort

This is a very ambiguous attribute of good films, and can be difficult to quantify. Film-goers opinions' on what makes a good film can vary, and is very subjective. It can be assumed, however, that one can't just pick up a camera, put minimal work into filming, and expect an amazing film, and it's doubtful that it will be considered such by ANYONE. When you watch a film created by a team who loves what they're making, and tries to put as much effort and detail into a film as possible, it can be seen, and whether you like the film or not, it cannot be denied that work was put into it; that it wasn't another straight to TV movie. Take Titanic, for instance. James Cameron loves the subject, and put enormous effort into perfectly emulating the details present on the sunken ship. Dedication like that, even if it doesn't seem to make a tangible effect on the movie, exemplifies a team's dedication to film-making.

Moreover, even if the viewer didn't like the film personally, but can still acknowledge that it was well-made, that is the sign of a great film.

An Effective Message

If we discard ambiguous qualifiers like the criterion above, what else can make a great film? A powerful and effective message is one. One of the objectives of films is to connect with the audience is to connect with them on a deeper level, through the message, theme, symbols, etc. that are present in the film. When the audience is able to connect, it makes it that much more enjoyable for the viewers when they are able to relate back it. Even better is when the message isn't thrown into the viewer's face. Films that shove the meaning into your face can be blamed on bad writing, along with an inability to connect what the viewer sees with what they feel. One film that can be considered to have done it right is Bladerunner.

The film was portrayed in a way that made the identity of a human ambiguous, while also impressing this on the audience, along with other themes. The important point to take from this is that while Bladerunner is an action film, it still managed to impress these themes on the audience.

Acting

That’s it.

The acting present in a film can be more important than the cinematography, editing, and music. The acting can determine whether the message of the film is properly presented, and whether or not the audience will end up laughing at what was intended to be a gritty action movie. On the other hand, the acting of a movie can save it, and turn it into something great. Or just add to what was already a great film. Fight Club is an example of this.

Edward Norton and Bradd Pitts’ acting was what made the film such a great film. It added to the mystery of the pair, along with the line between who was who. Bradd Pitt did an excellent job of portraying Norton’s mental counterpart, adding the emotion necessary to make it believable (if you can call it that.

Wow, that sounded like shameless advertising. Go watch Fight Club everyone, I’ll mail whoever does a pizza roll.

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.