IMPACT

I can’t say that many things have what could be called “impact” on my life if they are not reality based. The birth of my children, my time fighting in Iraq and other significant milestones in my life has impact. Films? Well I guess they can have some impact, I just can’t say I’ll change my life view of things because of a story told on a screen. That being said, films are fun! It’s a combination of entertainment, escape, fantasy, horror, fiction or non-fiction all in a neat little 2-hour ball.

This past semester in Art 115 we had a list of feature films we were to view, and I’m supposed to tell you which three had the most impact on me and why. Okay, fair enough.

Pan’s Labyrinth is amongst the films we were viewed, and one of the favorites in my view. I didn’t even mind the subtitles, which under routine circumstances I do not enjoy.  I enjoyed getting caught up in the story, cheering for the heroine, feeling anger at the different antagonists, happiness at their defeat and finally elation for our protagonist finally reaching her home. It was just a nice story, which made ot very enjoyable viewing for a quiet Sunday afternoon.

Another pick was Mystery Train. Simply put, I enjoy the disjointed story that all converged around a central place, a flea-bag motel in downtown Memphis, and a central incident-a single gunshot. Watching the lives of the various characters interact and become entwined at different points keeps the viewer both interested and curious.

Lastly, of the required viewing I must choose Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull. Shot in stark black and white with a powerful storyline this movie is considered a classic. I was particularly amazed at the films look at domestic violence as if it was just another accepted fact of life, which in that time I would have to agree it probably was.  Watching the lead character, Jake LaMotta, age, change and grow through life was fascinating.

Some films not on the list that I would recommend anyone interested in films see are: 1941 (Steven Spielberg, 1979) Bringing out the Dead (Martin Scorsese, 1999) and The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2008)

My recommendation of 1941as a film everyone should see comes from my affinity for the style of filmmaking. This whirlwind comedy about the panic that ensued in Los Angeles immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor culminates in the “Zoot Suit” riot. What I find most fascinating is the way the special effects were accomplished. Spielberg chose to use meticulous scale models to showcase the destruction of Hollywood Blvd. This detailed use of models instead of computerized special effects shows a love of the craft not exhibited by filmmakers today.

My second choice of films that everyone interested in film should see is Martin Scorsese’s “Bringing out the Dead”, a story of a New York paramedic haunted by the ghosts of patients he has not been able to save. The gritty realism of a paramedic in New York who is worn down by continually having to witness the worst of humanity is done in both a serious and funny matter through the exploits of the ensemble cast.

Lastly, I would recommend “The Hurt Locker” by Kathryn Bigelow. This 2008 story of a bomb tech in Iraq is a must see for anyone interested in knowing what life in Iraq is truly about. The one thing I would call inaccurate is the main characters portrayal as a renegade. In fact, no person of that type would be permitted to work in the explosive ordinance field. The personality that thrives in military EOD is highly disciplined, unlike the character portrayed. All the other points shown are highly accurate and I give this one a strong recommendation.

Shot List-North by Northwest

Hello friends!

This blog is just a little different. My intent was to embed a video from youtube, but those pesky "no embed" rules get in the way....sigh. So I've done the next best thing; here's a link to the famous scene from "Noth by Northwest" were Cary Grant is being chased by a bi-plane. My shot list only goes through the first 57 seconds of the clip- but enjoy the whole thing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=g458w2X9uHc

SHOT LIST

Production Title: North By Northwest

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Cinematographer: Robert Burks

SHOT #	LOCATION	SHOT TYPE	CAMERA ANGLE	CAMERA MOVEMENT	SHOT DESCRIPTION (subject, action, lighting, etc.)
1.	Ext	EWA	POV	Pan	POV shot, Grant, slight pan right
2.	Ext	MCU	EL	None	Frontal Shot, Grant
3.	Ext	LS	LA	None	POV, Grant, watching airplane approach
4	Ext	MCU	EL	Pan	Frontal Shot, Grant, watching airplane approach
5	Ext	MS	LA	None	POV, Grant, Plane fast approaching, getting lower to the ground
6	Ext	MCU	HA	None	Grant, fearful, begins to turn away
7	Ext	MCU	EL	None	Grant throws himself to the ground
8	Ext	MLS	LA	Pan	Airplane roars past, begins gaining altitude
9	Ext	MCU	EL	None	Grant rises, watches plane begin a long banking turn.
10	Ext	WA	LA	Pan	Airplane a banking right
11	Ext	MCU	LA	None	Grant watches plane prepare for another attack, braces to run or find cover
12	Ext	MLS	LA	None	Plane begins another attack run
13	Ext	MCU	EL	None	Grant turns to take cover
14	Ext	MCU/2S	LA	RF	Focus on Grant, bottom of plane passing over is visible, out of focus
15	Ext	MLS	LA	Pan	POV shot Grant, watching plane reposition for another attack
16	Ext	LS	LA	None	POV shot, Grant sees car approaching
17	Ext	MCU	EL	None	Grant decides to try to flag down passing car
18	Ext	WA	LA	None	Grant Running toward road

Mise-en-scene or "How it Looks"

If you are anything like me, you view a movie to be entertained. Escape from the pressures of the outside world in the form of a movie is a very common way to pass an hour or two, and in some extreme  cases a few hours. Like most people I rarely thought of composition, framing, juxtapositioning, lighting or well, anything for that matter. The purpose for this blog is to show you a complete amateur's view of some of it all.

I've chosen some still shots from various movies to illustrate my points. Lets start with the basic "Rule of Thirds." Picture if you will a common "Tic-Tac-Toe" grid. A simple square divided into 9 equal parts. The 3 squares across top are the top third, the 3 across the center are the middle third and of course the bottom 3 comprise the bottom third. Same goes for the left,center and right. Simple enough, right?  The shots below illustrate this composition concept.

In this still from "Stranger Than Paradise" we have a great example of the "rule of thirds." Our two characters are in the foreground on the left and right of the shot. There are background set items, although they are mundane background props that do not draw the viewers attention other than to set the stage. Our characters are interacting with one another across the center third of the shot without drawing attention completely off of themselves. It's almost as if you expect something to appear between them other than the conversation they are having.



This still shot, also from the movie "Stranger Than Paradise" deals with a few more elements of the "rule of thirds." Our three characters are in the foreground, each occupying a third of the shot; left, right and center, respectively. The fact that no one main character occupies more or less space indicates they share equal importance in the shot. Not so with the background character located in the left middle third of the frame. Although he appears to be observing our main characters, his position in the shot combined with him being slightly out of focus leads the viewer to believe he is not a relevant character.

Along with the left, right and middle of a frame (or shot) you have the top, middle and bottom. Because films are 2-dimensional (usually, but we'll see how 3-D plays into the equation as it becomes more popular) one of the ways directors express depth is positioning people and things in the foreground or the background. Importance or relevance is not always the deciding factor in placement. In the scene from "Dead Man" above our characters are once again in the left and right thirds of the shot, but more importantly they are in the center of the frame. All else around them is out of focus, bring the viewer to realize that the conversation being had is of central importance to the story.

Having dealt with the "rule of thirds", lets move on to symetrical balance. Balance is exactly what it would seem to be: an equal spreading of composition that is pleasing to the eye and does not leave the viewer in undo anticipation of events to come. In the frame below from "Mystery Train" we see an example of balance. Our characters frame the shot on the left and right thirds with their heads in the center of the shot indicating that they are of importantance, while at the same time their line of sight leads us to upper third of the shot showing us they are both intently concentrating on the skyline.



Perhaps the best example I've found of symetrical balance is the frame above from "Down With the Law".  Note that are two characters are front and center in the shot, interacting face to face. What strikes me is the background. Note that they are standing at a fork in the road, indicating they are faced with a choice. If you look closely down each path before them they appear nearly identical- long straight roads lined with tall trees- indicating that regardless of the choice they might make, it's all the same. Almost as if the director is telling you that no matter what you do, your path is pre-determined.

The next concept we will explore is eye, or lead room. In the shot below from "Limits of Control" we see a clear example of "eye room" or "lead room". The character is clearing moving from left to right, showing motion or "lead room" and at the same time showing "eye room" or the concept that the characters eyes are in the top third of the shot, creating the aesthetically pleasing "head room."



The concept of compositional stress, or imbalance is demonstrated in the shot below again from " Limits of Control". Our character is seated in the left side of the frame and is concentrating on his beverage. The table opposite him is vacant and nothing in this individual frame indicates that there will be anyone or anything to fill the void, leaving the viewer anxious. The shot is unbalanced, which is probably exactly what the director wanted.



Lastly, we will look at Deep Space Composition. A shot has achieved deep space composition when 2 or more of the elements shown are emphasized in either the foreground, middle ground and background. In this frame from "Stranger Than Paradise" we see an example of deep space composition. Two of the characters are prominent in the foreground, while the third character is slightly back in the middle ground. The background is dominated by the stark white snow covered area. The shot itself conveys that the two characters in the foreground are somehow either closer to eachother than they are with the third, or if you are the suspiscious type of person- perhaps a conspiracy is afoot. It's all in how you look at it.

Black and White isn't always Black and White

Film Noir is perhaps the first film style that could be called uniquely American. The dark, brooding loner thrust into the middle of events that quickly go from something that appears to be beneficial at the outset to spiraling completely out of control with no end in sight. Director Errol Norris said “Great Noir films are films about fall guys; a person who finds himself caught in a net-the more he struggles the deeper he gets entwined.” Such is the case of Walter Neff, the protagonist character in Billy Wilder’s 1944 classic “Double Indemnity.”

Poor Walter, one might well think. Well at least in the beginning. Our protagonist is introduced as a simple insurance salesman that makes a routine follow up sales call to a client that has allowed an auto policy to lapse. When he arrives at the client’s house he meets not the client but his wife, Phyllis Dietrichson. One thing leads to another and before Walter can blink the two of them have begun plotting the murder of Mr. Dietrichson. Plans are made, insurance policies are written, suspense builds and in very short order Mr. Dietrichson is no longer amongst the living. It does not take long for things to begin to unravel for our couple. A suspicious antagonist in the form of Edward G. Robinson as the bulldog-like claims adjuster and a step daughter that is certain Phyllis not only killed her father, but several years earlier- her mother as well. From this point the lives of Walter and Phyllis quickly spiral out control in classic Noir style as they desperately try to stay one step ahead of the claims adjuster, the law, and eventually each other.

Earlier I said “at least in the beginning” about feeling sorry for Walter. Walter is definitely a fall guy to Phyllis’ femme fatale. She draws him in quickly and ensnares him deeply-as Janey Place said “: Men have always been endangered by a strong, sexual female. They’re extremely driven, selfish ambitious characters”. Phyllis is undoubtedly just that, which makes her classic Femme Fatale. From the moment we meet her at the top of the stairs in the Dietrichson house it is obvious that she knows what she wants and will go to nearly psychotic extremes to get it. But it takes two to tango, as the old saying goes. Walter allows himself to flirt with a married woman and is very willing to hear whatever she has to say, including plotting to murder her husband. By the time he begins to realize that she is using him just like she uses everyone around her, it is too late.

One need only look on the surface of “Double Indemnity” to know it is classic film noir in not only the sense of its characters and plot, but in its cinematography as well. The abundant use of shadows to hide movement, strategically placed lighting and location shooting in open fields, back alleys and dirty streets give the viewer a genuine feel that they are living this tragedy right alongside our protagonist.

A newer genre is the neo-noir film. The modern filmmakers attempt at noir using the same plot lines, similar character development with the addition of color film stock. While entertaining to watch I would have to say that they lack the style of the original noir films of the 1940’s and 50’s. Skillful use of camera angles, planned shots, lighting and shadows that established the feel of a classic noir film just seem to be lost with the addition of color. One must remember that noir wasn’t just shadows and black and white film stock- it was the attitude of the audience. America had just fought a vicious war overseas and was embarking on the threat of nuclear annihilation in the cold war. Many things had changed for the average person and that caused a change in thinking. After going through all that the plot lines of a noir film just didn’t have the appeal they once did.

Was This Worth an Award?

What makes a movie worthy of an award? Could it be the story? The Cinematography? The acting? The editing? In the plainest of terms the answer to all of these is absolutely yes. The motion picture academy of arts and sciences actually gives awards in all these categories. But what makes me think a movie is worthy of an award? Frankly, I have to walk away from the theater completely blown away . The most striking example I can remember has to be “Schindlers List”. What struck me the most was the only color shot in the film. It was a red coat being worn by a small girl in the Jewish ghetto. You see her walk into a doorway as the Nazis are rounding up people for depottation and then you don’t see her again. Later on in the film you see the coat on a pile of clothes that belong to the recently murdered. That stuck with me for years, along with many other striking scenes that drove home the horror of the holocaust. That is the kind of impact that makes a movie award worthy.
Perhaps the second film that stands out to me was a smaller budget film entitled “Prey for Rock and Roll” by Eric Steyermark and starring Gina Gershon. It is the adapted life story of Cheri Lovedog and chronicles her journey trying to make it big in the punk rock scene in the 1980’s. The film takes the viewer on a journey of hope, great effort, frustration and tragedy. You are ultimately led to the conclusion that not everyone achieves fame and fortune despite great effort, but that you can still achieve personal satisfaction and happiness. The movie is punctuated with a hard hitting punk rock soundtrack that keeps the movie moving at a good pace.
From the standpoint of modern editing, “A Trip to the Moon” was a disaster. Horrible splicing and jumpy camera work. But it must be remembered that it was amongst the very first films ever made so just about everything in this film was groundbreaking. There really was nothing that it could be compared to. The advancements of a mere year between “A Trip to the Moon” and “The Great Train Robbery” were staggering. The editing was smoother; the camera angles showed great evolution in the art of cinematography and the ability to tell the story without words was greatly advanced. I think what struck me most about “A Trip to the Moon” was the sheer arrogance. In the first scenes a dissenter to the attempt at space travel is ridiculed and pushed aside. Once the “expedition” arrives on the moon they quickly begin forcing themselves upon the original inhabitants, killing several of them-including the ruler of the moon people. I would call “The Great Train Robbery” much more award worthy than “A Trip to the Moon” based solely on these points.
As an interesting side note, I was recently in a furniture store (of all places) when I heard a song from the 90's that I had not heard in a long time. "Tonight, Tonight" by the Smashing Pumpkins. I turned to the screen and saw the video being played and was surprised to see that the entire video was an homeage to "A Trip to the Moon". Although I had seen the video many times before I viewed it entirely in a new light after seeing "A Trip to the Moon" again. I honestly do not know how I did not see the correlation before that moment. In the end scene of the video the two protagonists are rescued after splashing down into the ocean by a boat named the SS Melies, an obvious nod to director Georges Melies. Unfortunately because of copyright laws I could not repost the video here, but if you get the chance to see it you'll know what I'm talking about.