Blog Assignment #6 - Film Criticism (Ideological
Theory)
When watching Christopher Nolan's The Prestige, I found myself
concentrating with a specific attitude that I don't usually apply to other
movies. I did know beforehand that it was a film about magicians. It did also
help to know that this was a mystery/mind-bending genre that I could expect to
exercise my thought processing. Yet, I think what really got me ready was the
fact that Nolan also directed Inception, so
I knew I was in for a ride. The way in which the double/reversed plot (if that
makes sense) draws you in, and causes you to focus on certain parts of the plot
is really clever…. Sort of like a REAL magic trick! Nolan accomplished this cinematically
by using believable spectator shots and compelling story via flashbacks within
the movie.
I have to admit, the use of
flashback/flash-forward in the film would be hard to understand if one were not
paying close attention. It can be easy to miss the importance of Fallon, or to
detect the reality or deceptiveness in Tesla’s machine if you don’t take into
account the rest of the scenes. The same could be said about cinema in general.
The majority of youth in today’s generation flock to the theatres in lieu of
media mega hype surrounding any particular block-buster hit. Upon seeing this
film, if it at all contains super special FX or a gimmick you could fill in
yourself, you know the result. Awe and wonder surround the movie praising its
quality. These youth probably have never seen (or took the time to watch) the
cinematic brilliance of classic Hollywood. They most likely have never even
bothered to glance at foreign films to take into account other facets of this
medium. I really see this blockbuster “sleight of hand” idea well represented
in The Prestige. The masses are
uneducated as the new replaces the old. History gets buried in the hype of
today.
The use of journals by Angier and
Borden was really interesting as well. Each man expressed a sense of invasion
as well as obsession (Angier more of course). As the movie unfolds, the idea of
magic (as trivial to us non-magicians is) drives these men to make drastic
decisions as far as death. I grasped that the same could be said about humanity
today. When a person loses sight of their relationships/environment, and give
into their obsessions, The Prestige displays
this in an intricate tale that’s more than what meets the eye.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than a Montage - The Formalist Theory (Outline)
1) From one
movie to the next, the masses of movie-goers all undergo a a separate, personal
experience in watching any film. We all flock to watch a film for different
reasons. We actually sit through movies for different reasons. Audiences also
leave changed in some way upon the arrival of the credits. The truth is,
whether we like it or not, aspects of film delve into our minds and form ideas
or opinions in our innermost thoughts. As we view the images of a jumpy
montage, peer into the sepia tinted face of a character in deep thought, or
juggle the process of a shot covered by another overlay, our minds take
something away depending on who we are. This is the beauty of film study!
Within the sphere of film academia,
two famous schools of thought stand out and opposed. On the side supported and
brought to life by people like V.F. Perkins and Robin Wood is Formalist film
criticism. The theory involves exactly what the name implies - formal,
close-up, technical aspects which although miniscule at a glance, can
speak volumes about the movie, or cinema in general! The formalist path also
tends to support auteur theory views which pushes the director into the light
as an actual "author" of a film. For this reason, a one second change
during shooting has the possibility to make huge ripples in relation to the
rest of the scene.
2-3) (Angle, lighting, color symbolism, casting)Details are everything! You
need details to make a good movie. The critical questions that Perkins asks
build upon his synthetic approach of film analysis. The one detail within a
shot can ripple out and branch into higher ideas regarding the film and maybe
even cinema.
4-5) (Auteurship) Formalist Theory views largely agree with the auteur
ideology. The personality of a director is in direct correlation with the
smallest shots. He can place details of a shot within filming via the overall
personality of his film style.
6-7) (Anti-Ideological) You can’t study a film without including everything
the film has to offer. By stepping back and not embracing certain details
within scenes and shots, we may overlook what the director actually may be
trying to convey.
I will be
analyzing Grapes of Wrath with the Formalist Theory. I feel that small editing
techniques, camera work, and mise-en-scene in the film will be very interesting
to study as well as their impact on the film as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog Assignment #3 - Cinematic Betrayal
1) In the Ford/Toland adaption of Grapes of Wrath, the scene in the beginning with Tom Joad and former reverend Jim Casy stood out to me. In the novel, Steinbeck creates the scene out in broad daylight in a scorching summer sun. According to Tom it's "hotter'n hell". In the movie, Ford sets the scene under the tree in a dark and cloudy afternoon. The dialogue between the two characters is significantly shorter in the movie compared to the book. Ford leaves out details such as the specific sexual encounters with "girls in the grass", the baptism of Tom and Susy Little, the benefits of prison life, and the turtle. I believe Casy in the novel was very honest about his unbelief in God's actual influence in life. In the movie I felt as if he was still unsure. Although several parts were absent in the movie, I still saw Ford was giving off an aura of nostalgia and hardship wrapped up in companionship. The actors and cuts between the characters in front of the tree made the interaction purely cinematic with shadowed lighting and changes in emotion. I feel as if Ford left in the parts that were important to the mood he was trying to convey throughout the movie. He followed the novel yet focused on specific parts more than others to still evoke the frontier American spirit of Steinbeck's novel. Toland and Ford didn't just copy Steinbeck straight-up, but stuck to their guns and stayed true to their western style without betraying the book. I believe they're auteurs.
2) After the fruitful discussion in class about how applicable auteur theory really is, I must say I am still in the middle! I can't lean too far one way or the other because there are definitely pros and cons to to this idea. The director IS the boss in most ways when shooting a movie. It is he that can change things on the spot and can use what his mind envisions to capture a shot. You also can't argue that many director's have a signature style that is unmistakable across the bulk of their films. Tarantino likes blood. The Coen brothers like dark humor and grit. Burton likes dark, cartoonish, horror-style fantasies. When crossing to the opposed side, I definitely believe the creation of a film is a team effort. You need each and every person working cohesively to bring life to projection at your local cinema. When describing people as auteurs, you also can make the mistake of putting directors on a pedestal and shutting doors to other possible film greats if they may have a similar film and write them off as remakes or "(insert director's name here)" style. The truth is, auteur theory is a thorn-in-your-side type of idea. It has validity within the realm of film but not totally to the point to rule out ideas of cohesive efforts and influences outside of a director's cranium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog Assignment # 1 - Godard on Film
I must say that when first watching Masculin Feminin, I've never been caught off guard so many times. Even as a first-time viewer of Godard films, it is obvious to me that his style is a break, or better yet an outcry from the Hollywood IMR. The general narrative structure is totally broken in Godard's Masculin Feminin. Although it did bother me and my americanized, Hollywood experience, I still found it very interesting - especially the 1-on-1 conversations between characters.
Focusing on the first close-up conversation in the washroom between Paul and Madeleine, Godard begins with camera in the corner of the romm facing both characters. As Madeleine moves to use the sink, the camera followers her and leaves Paul out of the shot only to be seen in the mirror. Following this small move, the characters dialogue revolves around several topics. Paul's focuses on sexual ideas while Madeleine talks about love, relationships, and philosophical ideas. I believe this scene (along with the plethora of other similar "Paul-cut-out" shots) speaks volumes about how Godard views film is more than just a vessel for a cool story. Godard sees film as a powerful way to express views like feminism in society today. While Madeleine is so absorbed in the mirror as she combs her hair, Godard puts forth the idea that women idolize appearance and other issues come second. Paul's pushy and unashamed questions about Madeleine's breasts also reveals Godard's attempt to open audience's eyes masculinity's connection to sex.
The most striking part of this scene is Godard's use of the camera. When watching the conversation, I instantly realized that he wouldn't cut the camera when the other person spoke. It was shocking to see Godard not follow the shot/reverse/shot rule in this long scene. Upon further contemplation, I did see the merit in his technique. As Madeleine/Paul would talk off screen, his camera work allows us to see the focused character's reaction to whatever's being said. I believe this goes hand-in-hand with my previous claim. Godard's style makes me think that he believes the camera is very real, and in a sense, we are the camera. We are invited into this world. We're IN it. As we watch, Godard places us in this small washroom to spy on each person close up as in real life. This voyeuristic privelege shows that Godard wants film to be realistic, not just a fake story on a screen.
Godard brings the audience in and desires interaction. His unconventional style forces us to take a step back and actually think about what he's doing. When looking back to Sergei Einstein's views, it's agreeable to say that Godard's mission is to affect society via intellectual montages and odd attractions (i.e. arcade man turning his knife on Paul then plunging it into his own belly). I stand by the idea that Godard sees himself not only as a film maker, but as a philosopher in every sense of the word. He shoots his movies not for mere entertainment, but for a thought-provoking reaction in us.
