In class last week we watched Blow Out directed by Brian De Palma which I recommend to anyone wanting to watch a really thoughtful and carefully constructed film. Like Donna said, everything had a clear purpose and was placed in the film carefully but with confidence. From the prolific patriotism imagery to the constant reminder that we are watching a film, De Palma does what he wants with the movie and doesn’t make any excuses.
Particularly I find that the view on the role of audiences to be one of the most interesting aspects of the film. Blow Out is not a movie in which we get “sucked into” the created world on the screen. With the special camera shots (like the spinning shot, overhead shot, and just the camera reel prop in lots and lots of shots, etc.) we never really forget that we are in the audience watching a film. Also, just the content of the film serves as a reminder that we are watching a movie what with the shallow use of nudity and vulgarity (within the frame story film that is, Coed Frenzy). We are given a dramatized and mixed view of reality which emphasizes the idea that we are purely shallow entertainment-seekers as audience members.
Another thing that I thought was interesting in the film was the treatment of the idea of American ambition. I can’t decide if Blow Out was mocking the idea of the investigative, honest, skilled, good citizen-character making a difference or if the film genuinely tried to give a view of the ambitious “regular” guy doing something big (like figuring out a murder of a high profile political leader). Some part of me (the optimistic, patriotic side I guess) wants to believe that De Palma was actually making a comment on the patriotic spirit within some citizens. Jack (a very nondescript name—emphasizing how he could’ve been any guy off the street) fights for truth in that he refuses to back down in regards to the actual happenings of the murder. However, I also think that all this overt patriotic imagery and the ending in which Jack ends up where he started (just with a more authentic scream in the crappy movie he works for) only mocks the idea of the “American ambition” (all idealized and utopia-esque). I’m leaning more towards the latter, but I wish I could believe the former view. I think that’s De Palma’s intention though, to mock the audience’s idea of a “good” story—complete with damsel in distress, young brave attractive hero-man, and creepy demented bad guy. He “disrespects” the audience in giving us “reality chopped up and mixed with vulgarity and nudity” (noted from Donna’s end-of-movie comments). But he also makes fun of that type of entertainment by providing it to us using methods that keep us from forgetting that we are watching a movie.
I think the fact that Jack worked on the sound for a film, a job in which he must create/find each noise and make it sound believable, is particularly interesting in that it gives another dimension to the already multi-faceted views of reality within the film. We see the murder scenario from the media’s view, Jack’s view, and then our own view watching the film. Reality is a plaything throughout the entire film. The battle between these different views inspires much thought about what “reality” exactly is. Is it what the media shows us, what we see for ourselves…can we ever truly know and witness reality? If not, then what limits us? Is our own subjectivity keeping us from seeing the “real” in reality?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Day 6
I'm excited about screenwriting. In class we went over the basics of the process of writing a screenplay (complete with character dialogue, camera notes, and action) and it actually didn't seem all too complicated. The only thing that kinda makes me nervous is how we must know exactly how each scene will play out (with the camera notes). I know the director will "man" the exact set up of the shots but still, it's the screenwriter's job first to pen the film.
I wonder how the screenwriter comes up with ideas about the way a scene will play out. Does she see the film play out as a finished movie in her head or use her "mind's eye" to record the film? I find intriguing how people can envision something in their head and then just record it (whether on paper, film, canvas, etc.). Film especially strikes me as a terribly demanding form of expression in that you must create a whole situation for the viewer with dialogue, camera movement, plot, conflict, action…and all this starts with the screenplay.
After all our workshops and movie-making discussions we are now at the stage in class where we must put our new knowledge to use in creating our own short film. The class is split into six groups with about four or five people in each group (and each with a different job). The assignment is to create a five minute film based on an assigned genre. And of course, there are some other fun requirements such as the film must include a mime/clown, skull, cheese grater, a guitar, and the lines "Why is this happening to me today of all days?” and "It would be better for us not to talk about that." I'm not worried about these requirements too much, it'll be fun.
I can’t decide whether my film group was blessed or cursed with the genre of comedy. On one hand, there are so many different forms of “funny” which can help us in that we’ll have a lot from which to choose. However, so many different types of humor could make deciding on a specific idea difficult. I’m up for the challenge, don’t get me wrong, but I am very indecisive. Hopefully with five people in our film group we can come up with a really good idea that we all feel comfortable with. Also, I hope everyone can find a middle ground on an idea that we think everyone will find funny, since people have very different ideas of what is and is not funny.
During our short discussion in class, we tried to list a few things that are funny in every situation and to nearly everyone. We came up with people falling (nothing too serious though, no one wants to see something fall do their death from a cliff…or I don’t), people farting (you can’t deny that that noise is funny, maybe it’s the child in us), and butts (yeah). Granted this is JUST A START. I've been stewing over some ideas the past few days, writing down what makes me laugh (which probably looks interesting to people around me because every time I write down something funny I end up laughing to myself, again) and any other particularly interesting ideas.
I think the main decision our group has to make is deciding the source of the humor in our film, that is, if the comedy will be character driven (we'll need to recruit some funny actors...or funny looking HA), situation driven, a little bit of both, or maybe "off the wall" random (which I kinda like from time to time, but it can get a little risky). Personally, I'm leaning away from the character driven comedy just because our pool of established comedic actors may not be as accessible as creating a funny situation. We're in funny situations every day right? I can usually find something to laugh at anyway. We'll see. Maybe I'll run into Steve Carell on my way to class and he'll agree to be the lead in our film for the price of a Hot Pocket. It could happen.
Until then, I plan on rewatching all of my favorite funny skits and movies…to get ideas of course.
I wonder how the screenwriter comes up with ideas about the way a scene will play out. Does she see the film play out as a finished movie in her head or use her "mind's eye" to record the film? I find intriguing how people can envision something in their head and then just record it (whether on paper, film, canvas, etc.). Film especially strikes me as a terribly demanding form of expression in that you must create a whole situation for the viewer with dialogue, camera movement, plot, conflict, action…and all this starts with the screenplay.
After all our workshops and movie-making discussions we are now at the stage in class where we must put our new knowledge to use in creating our own short film. The class is split into six groups with about four or five people in each group (and each with a different job). The assignment is to create a five minute film based on an assigned genre. And of course, there are some other fun requirements such as the film must include a mime/clown, skull, cheese grater, a guitar, and the lines "Why is this happening to me today of all days?” and "It would be better for us not to talk about that." I'm not worried about these requirements too much, it'll be fun.
I can’t decide whether my film group was blessed or cursed with the genre of comedy. On one hand, there are so many different forms of “funny” which can help us in that we’ll have a lot from which to choose. However, so many different types of humor could make deciding on a specific idea difficult. I’m up for the challenge, don’t get me wrong, but I am very indecisive. Hopefully with five people in our film group we can come up with a really good idea that we all feel comfortable with. Also, I hope everyone can find a middle ground on an idea that we think everyone will find funny, since people have very different ideas of what is and is not funny.
During our short discussion in class, we tried to list a few things that are funny in every situation and to nearly everyone. We came up with people falling (nothing too serious though, no one wants to see something fall do their death from a cliff…or I don’t), people farting (you can’t deny that that noise is funny, maybe it’s the child in us), and butts (yeah). Granted this is JUST A START. I've been stewing over some ideas the past few days, writing down what makes me laugh (which probably looks interesting to people around me because every time I write down something funny I end up laughing to myself, again) and any other particularly interesting ideas.
I think the main decision our group has to make is deciding the source of the humor in our film, that is, if the comedy will be character driven (we'll need to recruit some funny actors...or funny looking HA), situation driven, a little bit of both, or maybe "off the wall" random (which I kinda like from time to time, but it can get a little risky). Personally, I'm leaning away from the character driven comedy just because our pool of established comedic actors may not be as accessible as creating a funny situation. We're in funny situations every day right? I can usually find something to laugh at anyway. We'll see. Maybe I'll run into Steve Carell on my way to class and he'll agree to be the lead in our film for the price of a Hot Pocket. It could happen.
Until then, I plan on rewatching all of my favorite funny skits and movies…to get ideas of course.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Dignity, always Dignity
This week we watched Singing in the Rain, which I must confess I had never seen before that night, and I loved it. After the movie I just felt happy. The movie has all the ingredients to put you in a good mood (well, me anyway): bright colors (Technicolor could make mud look exciting), upbeat tongue-twister songs, fun dance numbers, quippy dialogue, and then there's all that cinematography, screenplay, and sound editing stuff that helps too.
The cinematography and editing in Singing in the Rain seems to focus on making everything as smooth and seamless as possible to enhance that comfortable, entertaining, show-like quality surrounding the story. The techniques that really stood out to me are the way the dance numbers are filmed in that we (the viewer) are automatically transported to a theatre seat. The spectacular dances are performed as if on a stage and we are watching the show not a screen but on a stage.
Donna mentioned an interesting contrast in class between musicals of this time period (50's) and now. Modern musicals are filmed more like music videos than the theater show style of earlier musicals. I've noticed before how movies like Moulin Rouge and Sweeney Todd have song and dance numbers that have a lot of cuts and editing either to add excitement or to keep the story line going. However, sometimes I get frustrated (this goes for Moulin Rouge more than Sweeney Todd) that I can't just see what's going on. The cuts and flashes and angles and music...I just want to see what they are doing. In saying this, I recognize that the effect behind the sometimes frenzied film editing is to create excitement and emphasize some aspect of the story, but every now and then, I just want to watch someone dance and know that they are dancing rather than doing a lot of quick poses.
I didn't have to worry about seeing dancing in Singing in the Rain. I appreciated the continuity of the dance numbers and even though I only saw a 180* view (of the implied stage) I still felt that I could see everything pertaining to the story. The use of the dolly shots (to the point of going through walls so we don't miss one second of the action) adds to the comfortable flow of the performance scenes.
Along with the show quality of the performances, the fun and light atmosphere the screenplay creates is why I think this movie is loved. The little quips here and there from Cosmo, the playful banter between Kathy and Don on their first meeting, and the jokes floating just above the gorgeous but unfortunate voiced Lina kept me smiling throughout the entire movie. Between the perfectly timed dialogue (unrealistic but whatever) and the happy ending for the happy couple, I couldn't help but feel good after watching it.
The realism of the film, how every character has perfect timing and knows every dance, doesn't bother me like it does in some movies. I think the fun tone of the film recognizes the need for some escapism every now and then.
The cinematography and editing in Singing in the Rain seems to focus on making everything as smooth and seamless as possible to enhance that comfortable, entertaining, show-like quality surrounding the story. The techniques that really stood out to me are the way the dance numbers are filmed in that we (the viewer) are automatically transported to a theatre seat. The spectacular dances are performed as if on a stage and we are watching the show not a screen but on a stage.
Donna mentioned an interesting contrast in class between musicals of this time period (50's) and now. Modern musicals are filmed more like music videos than the theater show style of earlier musicals. I've noticed before how movies like Moulin Rouge and Sweeney Todd have song and dance numbers that have a lot of cuts and editing either to add excitement or to keep the story line going. However, sometimes I get frustrated (this goes for Moulin Rouge more than Sweeney Todd) that I can't just see what's going on. The cuts and flashes and angles and music...I just want to see what they are doing. In saying this, I recognize that the effect behind the sometimes frenzied film editing is to create excitement and emphasize some aspect of the story, but every now and then, I just want to watch someone dance and know that they are dancing rather than doing a lot of quick poses.
I didn't have to worry about seeing dancing in Singing in the Rain. I appreciated the continuity of the dance numbers and even though I only saw a 180* view (of the implied stage) I still felt that I could see everything pertaining to the story. The use of the dolly shots (to the point of going through walls so we don't miss one second of the action) adds to the comfortable flow of the performance scenes.
Along with the show quality of the performances, the fun and light atmosphere the screenplay creates is why I think this movie is loved. The little quips here and there from Cosmo, the playful banter between Kathy and Don on their first meeting, and the jokes floating just above the gorgeous but unfortunate voiced Lina kept me smiling throughout the entire movie. Between the perfectly timed dialogue (unrealistic but whatever) and the happy ending for the happy couple, I couldn't help but feel good after watching it.
The realism of the film, how every character has perfect timing and knows every dance, doesn't bother me like it does in some movies. I think the fun tone of the film recognizes the need for some escapism every now and then.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Day Four
After learning about the mechanics behind the different techniques used in film to create emotion and tone, I don’t feel so overwhelmed with the whole “create your own film” thing. The film making process doesn’t seem so daunting now that I know how the filmmakers do some of the little tricks they use to create a given effect. I’m sure I can use some of the tools Eric showed us in our short film at the end of the semester.
I’m particularly interested in the use of the camera in perspective shots. I like how point of view shots give the audience the eyes of the character—I think it adds another, more interactive, element to a film and the story. I feel that point of view shots gives the audience an opportunity to be involved in the story more so than being a looker-onner. Over the shoulder shots are also interesting in that it feels more secretive to me. It’s like you’re seeing the character’s reaction to another character or action that no one else is seeing. Overall, I like the idea of seeing things from many different angles, especially if the shot gives us a perspective not humanly possible (like an aerial or clear underwater view). The pool scene in Sunset Boulevard as I said before is one of my favorite examples of a really interesting and thoughtful use of perspective. Also the scene in Almost Famous in which William sees Penny off at the airport on her way to Morocco is a good example of point of view shots creating emotion. William Miller watches Penny’s plane leave through the airport windows and Penny watches William run with the plane through her little round window. The juxtaposition of these two point of view shots emphasizes the emotional connection between the characters. I like how the perspective lends film meaning and emotion. I don’t think I would be shy about moving the camera around and trying different angles in our film.
Now the image effects as far as shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and focal length are still a little intimidating. Anything to do with buttons on the camera I’m still a little touchy with (so hopefully I won’t be the one to operate the camera). I still feel apprehensive when it comes to which camera settings to use and in what combinations to create the best shot. Maybe all it will take is some playing around (the very careful kind) with the camera to find the best look.
Lighting seems really fun to me however. I think with more research and experience I can come up with some cool lighting effect ideas. Eric’s tips about using cardboard cutouts and reflective insulation panels inspired to look at things around me for their reflective/light bouncing potential. I think light is one of the most creative elements of a film when utilized properly. Again, Sunset Boulevard is a brilliant example with the play on spotlights and creepy shadows/harsh lights over faces to heighten stress and of course, drama. I really enjoy movies that play with light almost as another character.
I think I already have a start on the “eye for lighting” as well (I like to think I do anyway). Austin made a comment just tonight about how testy I get if I don’t have the right light in my room while doing homework or watching a movie, etc. And I must agree. Lighting is important to me. I hope I don’t turn out to be really bad at film lighting.
I’m particularly interested in the use of the camera in perspective shots. I like how point of view shots give the audience the eyes of the character—I think it adds another, more interactive, element to a film and the story. I feel that point of view shots gives the audience an opportunity to be involved in the story more so than being a looker-onner. Over the shoulder shots are also interesting in that it feels more secretive to me. It’s like you’re seeing the character’s reaction to another character or action that no one else is seeing. Overall, I like the idea of seeing things from many different angles, especially if the shot gives us a perspective not humanly possible (like an aerial or clear underwater view). The pool scene in Sunset Boulevard as I said before is one of my favorite examples of a really interesting and thoughtful use of perspective. Also the scene in Almost Famous in which William sees Penny off at the airport on her way to Morocco is a good example of point of view shots creating emotion. William Miller watches Penny’s plane leave through the airport windows and Penny watches William run with the plane through her little round window. The juxtaposition of these two point of view shots emphasizes the emotional connection between the characters. I like how the perspective lends film meaning and emotion. I don’t think I would be shy about moving the camera around and trying different angles in our film.
Now the image effects as far as shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and focal length are still a little intimidating. Anything to do with buttons on the camera I’m still a little touchy with (so hopefully I won’t be the one to operate the camera). I still feel apprehensive when it comes to which camera settings to use and in what combinations to create the best shot. Maybe all it will take is some playing around (the very careful kind) with the camera to find the best look.
Lighting seems really fun to me however. I think with more research and experience I can come up with some cool lighting effect ideas. Eric’s tips about using cardboard cutouts and reflective insulation panels inspired to look at things around me for their reflective/light bouncing potential. I think light is one of the most creative elements of a film when utilized properly. Again, Sunset Boulevard is a brilliant example with the play on spotlights and creepy shadows/harsh lights over faces to heighten stress and of course, drama. I really enjoy movies that play with light almost as another character.
I think I already have a start on the “eye for lighting” as well (I like to think I do anyway). Austin made a comment just tonight about how testy I get if I don’t have the right light in my room while doing homework or watching a movie, etc. And I must agree. Lighting is important to me. I hope I don’t turn out to be really bad at film lighting.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Day Three--I'm ready for my close-up Mr. DeMille
Sunset Boulevard is a brilliant movie first of all. I found it a very creative and interesting work of art. One of the first scenes stood out to me the most: a dead man floating in a pool surrounded by police and investigators, all seen from the bottom of the pool. The perspective of this one shot set the tone for the entire movie. The fact that we could see Joe's (as we later find out is the dead man) face and the flash of the investigator's cameras through the water eerily resembles a grotesque stage on which Joe Gillis's floating body is the star. The whole movie seems to follow the tone set by this image in that Norma (played by Gloria Swanson) is performing within her own creepy world throughout the entire film. Her mannerisms, voice, and attitude are dramatic and grandiose (elements only emphasized by the harsh lighting and bursts of playful yet eerie music).
I thought Max was an especially interesting character. I knew he was a little "off" when he shouted at Joe the first time with that Lurch-like posture and entitled/rude attitude. I just felt that he played a more important part in Norma's life than just the butler. While he is the liaison between reality and Norma's delusional world, he also performs. He plays the role of Norma's butler while he continues to watch over Norma (his ex-wife) and "protect" her from the harsh reality that her once-famous face has been all but forgotten. He is the selfless mastermind behind Norma's life and seems to truly love and care for her--especially in that he sticks around to see her marry multiple times and throw herself at Joe. I just wonder why he feels so connected to her. I suppose at one time she was a vibrant and youthful young woman and he feel in love with her spirit (all that crap) but you'd think he would run whenever she started the whole crazy, fame-starved, delusional thing. I think he may derive his meaning of life by keeping her life (however crazy) going.
Joe gets a taste of the twisted life of an "actor" when he plays the role of Norma's lover/companion while trying to continue to live a normal life in the real world. He dresses up in costumes and puts on a character to please his "sugar momma."
Overall, I learned a lot about film noir from this movie and the discussion afterward. The point about which "world" is more believable was particularly interesting. I didn't think about that aspect of the film before Donna brought it up. I found it intriguing that the real world (outside of Norma's house) was less believable than the world within the lavish mansion's walls. I think I wanted to believe the real world so much simply because it was a relief from the eerie atmosphere of Norma's world that I didn't notice the "hokey-ness" (as Donna put it) of it.
I thought Max was an especially interesting character. I knew he was a little "off" when he shouted at Joe the first time with that Lurch-like posture and entitled/rude attitude. I just felt that he played a more important part in Norma's life than just the butler. While he is the liaison between reality and Norma's delusional world, he also performs. He plays the role of Norma's butler while he continues to watch over Norma (his ex-wife) and "protect" her from the harsh reality that her once-famous face has been all but forgotten. He is the selfless mastermind behind Norma's life and seems to truly love and care for her--especially in that he sticks around to see her marry multiple times and throw herself at Joe. I just wonder why he feels so connected to her. I suppose at one time she was a vibrant and youthful young woman and he feel in love with her spirit (all that crap) but you'd think he would run whenever she started the whole crazy, fame-starved, delusional thing. I think he may derive his meaning of life by keeping her life (however crazy) going.
Joe gets a taste of the twisted life of an "actor" when he plays the role of Norma's lover/companion while trying to continue to live a normal life in the real world. He dresses up in costumes and puts on a character to please his "sugar momma."
Overall, I learned a lot about film noir from this movie and the discussion afterward. The point about which "world" is more believable was particularly interesting. I didn't think about that aspect of the film before Donna brought it up. I found it intriguing that the real world (outside of Norma's house) was less believable than the world within the lavish mansion's walls. I think I wanted to believe the real world so much simply because it was a relief from the eerie atmosphere of Norma's world that I didn't notice the "hokey-ness" (as Donna put it) of it.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Day Two
Oh, okay. So that’s how a film is created. I totally get it. –That’s what I wish I could say after class, but I don’t quite feel that confident. I’m not saying that I didn’t learn a lot from the workshop last class (Eric did clear up a lot of fuzzy areas), just that it was so much information all at once that I couldn’t digest it. Every step in the process of making a film seemed to have ten sub-steps and about fifty people for each of those sub-steps (I’m probably being conservative on those estimates).
The main quality that I admire in these artists called filmmakers is their ability to make decisions. They seem to know (well the filmmakers on the behind the scenes clips from LoTR and Star Wars seemed to know anyway) exactly what they want out of every shot. Maybe it’s because of my indecisive nature that I find it hard to imagine seeing something so clearly that you automatically know what has to happen for the end product to turn out the way they want. It takes me twenty minutes to figure out what kind of toothpaste to buy, I can’t imagine the amount of stress it takes to decide what lighting, music, sound effects, special effects, and dialogue to include in a scene. Hopefully my indecisiveness won’t hinder me too much in class. It seems as though, more so in filmmaking than any other art, there are so many more decisions to be made to create a quality product. I find, for myself anyway, that things just come to mind naturally with a pencil and paper in front of me. However, with a camera and an infinite number of ways to tell an infinite number of stories or invoke a mood…where do they start?
Another thing that struck me while watching the short videos about making LoTR and Star Wars was the trust is must take to create a film. There are so many people doing so many different tasks on this one project and each person has to hand over complete trust to every other person. True, there are people who look over the progress and make sure that the work is cohesive, but even then, people must trust each other completely. Their name will be attached to this work from now on. I’m slightly worried about this aspect of filmmaking. If I have an idea that I feel strongly about and have a certain vision for, I can get kind of closed off until I see my idea through. I think that’s a good problem to have in a way: feeling so strongly about an idea that I must see it realized. Hopefully, it won’t turn into stubbornness.
The main quality that I admire in these artists called filmmakers is their ability to make decisions. They seem to know (well the filmmakers on the behind the scenes clips from LoTR and Star Wars seemed to know anyway) exactly what they want out of every shot. Maybe it’s because of my indecisive nature that I find it hard to imagine seeing something so clearly that you automatically know what has to happen for the end product to turn out the way they want. It takes me twenty minutes to figure out what kind of toothpaste to buy, I can’t imagine the amount of stress it takes to decide what lighting, music, sound effects, special effects, and dialogue to include in a scene. Hopefully my indecisiveness won’t hinder me too much in class. It seems as though, more so in filmmaking than any other art, there are so many more decisions to be made to create a quality product. I find, for myself anyway, that things just come to mind naturally with a pencil and paper in front of me. However, with a camera and an infinite number of ways to tell an infinite number of stories or invoke a mood…where do they start?
Another thing that struck me while watching the short videos about making LoTR and Star Wars was the trust is must take to create a film. There are so many people doing so many different tasks on this one project and each person has to hand over complete trust to every other person. True, there are people who look over the progress and make sure that the work is cohesive, but even then, people must trust each other completely. Their name will be attached to this work from now on. I’m slightly worried about this aspect of filmmaking. If I have an idea that I feel strongly about and have a certain vision for, I can get kind of closed off until I see my idea through. I think that’s a good problem to have in a way: feeling so strongly about an idea that I must see it realized. Hopefully, it won’t turn into stubbornness.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Day One
The first day of film class begins and as soon as I sit down I realize, with a drop of my stomach, that I don’t know anything about filmmaking or the history behind it. After a minute of thinking about this fact, I come to the conclusion that everything will be fine as long as I pay attention and stay enthusiastic. I’m excited but scared at the same time, honestly. I think I’ll be okay at analyzing films, but the whole creating a film is a bit daunting to me. There are so many different possibilities in film making--so many different stories you can tell, ways you can tell the same story, characters you can introduce to the audience, and places you can take the audience even if just for an hour or so. I wouldn’t know where to begin, but that is what class is for after all: to learn.
I began to think about perspective a lot as a result of class and the discussions of how film evolved through the different techniques used. Film gives us a different set of eyes. We have no choice in the matter in what we see. We see what we are shown and we hear what we are subjected to. Your eyes and ears are no longer yours during a film. While I would argue that watching a movie or a show is a more passive form of entertainment than reading for example (in that you, the audience, are subjected to the visual and audio experience within the film), I think it is perhaps the most personal form of expression for the filmmaker. It takes a tremendous amount of creativity and vision to create a film (I’m guessing anyway). Through film we experience every sense except smell and because of this; films guide our emotions in a way.
It amazes me how people can create an entire alternate reality within the frame of a movie or show. Film is, in my opinion, the ultimate form of expression for the film makers. They are creating this entire alternate reality for the audience to watch, hear, think, and feel about. Obviously, everyone will not think and feel exactly the same way about a film, but the filmmaker’s vision and purpose is still present. The audience sees not only into the lives of the characters within the film, but into the mind of the filmmaker and everyone contributing to the film. I think that’s also one thing that strikes me the most about film--the connection between filmmaker and audience.
I began to think about perspective a lot as a result of class and the discussions of how film evolved through the different techniques used. Film gives us a different set of eyes. We have no choice in the matter in what we see. We see what we are shown and we hear what we are subjected to. Your eyes and ears are no longer yours during a film. While I would argue that watching a movie or a show is a more passive form of entertainment than reading for example (in that you, the audience, are subjected to the visual and audio experience within the film), I think it is perhaps the most personal form of expression for the filmmaker. It takes a tremendous amount of creativity and vision to create a film (I’m guessing anyway). Through film we experience every sense except smell and because of this; films guide our emotions in a way.
It amazes me how people can create an entire alternate reality within the frame of a movie or show. Film is, in my opinion, the ultimate form of expression for the film makers. They are creating this entire alternate reality for the audience to watch, hear, think, and feel about. Obviously, everyone will not think and feel exactly the same way about a film, but the filmmaker’s vision and purpose is still present. The audience sees not only into the lives of the characters within the film, but into the mind of the filmmaker and everyone contributing to the film. I think that’s also one thing that strikes me the most about film--the connection between filmmaker and audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)