Response to Class on 11/18

One of the other classes I am taking this semester is TFM 571, which is a Director focus on Alfred Hitchcock. One of the most famous auteurs that we know. So as we learn about the genius behind Hitchcock in 571, it translates well as we are learning about auteur theory in this class.

So what is the auteur theory? An auteur is where a single author is the primary creative force behind a text. In addition, the body of work by that author expresses the authors distinctive vision of the world.

In speaking about an auteur we went on to view some works on a current name in the industry, Joss Whedon, which I will speak about toward the end of this entry. For now, speaking on the auteur, I would like to relate some of these ideas to the work of Alfred Hitchcock.

For Alfred Hitchcock, and most of his career, it truly was his way or the highway. Looking at some of the stories that come out of some of his most famous films, it is easy to see how he is considered to be an auteur.

In the movie Psycho, possibly the most famous of all Hitch's films, there is a certain shower scene that whether or not you have seen the entire movie, there is a good chance you know the scene. At the very least, you know what happens in it. Well, in this scene, it was filmed over 70 times. It had to be done with different angles, different actors playing norman bates's mother, the blood has to fall a certain way, the way the victim screams, everything has to be perfect. He was not keen on scripts, and thought they were one of the least important parts of the film, what the actors did and how they did it, how they showed it, and so on was much more important to Hitchcock than anything else. He had an amazing ability to get so much out of his actors, which is why so many wanted to work with him.

In the process of making films, there are certain Hitchcockian elements that can be found in almost all of his films. A blonde bomb shell lead actress is one of the most glaring elements he has in most of his films. There are the concepts of the innocent man being accused of something he did not do, the bumbling police who are always late or a little too confused, scopophilia, which we spoke about earlier in the year, and the list goes on and on. The films that Hitchcock made were his. His hand was all over the production and he made sure it came out the way he wanted. He was a very gifted director and had the right to do what he wanted in his films.

Moving on to Joss Whedon. A little background on the guy first. He is a 3rd generation TV writer, whose work can be seen in such shows as "Angel", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Firefly", "Dollhouse", and "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog". In these works there are several recurring elements, such as: existentialist themes like stressing freedom of choice and responsibility for one's actions, a feminist perspective, and a core ensemble of actors.

In class we watched an episode of "Angel" and the series of Dr. Horrible episodes. We can see how these elements are found in his work.

In "Angel" he uses an ensemble cast which he brings over from the show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," since "Angel" is a spin-off of Buffy. He tends to use a formalist style in a realist setting. Meaning he uses real location and surrounding, but glorifies the story using supernatural elemenet, and so on. On the expressionist aspect of his work, the "Angel" episode was very dark, there are a lot of uses of angles in the architecture, and so forth. In another way, the script and story line is serious and somewhat dark, but he still uses comedy to break it up.

For "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog," Whedon uses many of the same styles as he did in "Angel." he starts with a cast, headlined by Neil Patrick Harris. Also, like "Angel," the series is formalist set in a realist environment. The dark overtones were not as apparent throughout this show, despite the story line. The actual coloring of the show was bright and almost happy. Although, they were present toward the end as the "evil" overcame the "good." This was a comedy series that was full of one-liners and subtle humors as well as blatant comedy.

Unnoticeable in either of these examples were the use of extreme shots or angles. As he uses the characters to demonstrate feelings and emotion in the filming.

In the readings assigned with this week, there was one that stuck out in the way that can be described as joss Whedon's "personal stamp" on auteur theory. It all stems from the "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" web series. In the article from forbes.com states, "Whedon envisions producing series that could be shown as individual episodes and then repackaged as movies. The site would make money the same way Dr. Horribe did -- via downloads and DVDS." This is how I think Whedon is moving in a new direction toward putting his stamp on the auteur theory. While he used similar styles and such in previous work, he is now attempting to take a "stars-alligning" perfectly phenomenon with Dr, Horrible and using the model to start a new market and direction for creating a series to make money. If he is successful doing so, there will be an entire section of auteur theory devoted to his vision and how he has changed the industry. I think it is a great idea he has.

Response to Class on 11/04

I have long considered myself a movie buff. I am nowhere near the level of a majority of my fellow students, and don't hold a light to any one of my teachers, but I can hold my own in certain types of movie knowledge. One of my favorite genres of film is the war genre. For so many reasons I love war movies. This is why I was thoroughly enjoyed the lecture in class titled "War as a Genre: The Combat Film."

The main concept we focused on for this lecture broke down the lecture's title into its two parts: War genre and The combat film, and described them in the semantic and syntactic approaches to each. I will define the terms, then I will talk about one my favorite war movies based on the concepts learned.

The first section is The War Genre: Semantic

There is a platoon leader (who is the father or mentor)

The recruit, "cherry," or grunt

and an Arena of Death

There is also a dehumanization aspect here which involves the war machine, the concept of "Us vs. Them," and the faceless, shadowy enemy.

The War Genre: Syntactic (Broken down into different time periods)

Post WWI movies

The futility of war

destruction of innocence

Post WWII movies

Celebrating glory and heroism

The ultimate sacrifice for country

Throughout all time periods

understanding and healing

The Combat Film: Semantic

The war machine

The Faceless, shadowy enemy

serve the platoon, squadron

Platoon is "family," squad leader is the "father"

Death and resurrection

The Combat Film: Syntactic

Celebrating glory or heroism

The ultimate sacrifice for country

Us vs. them

Team vs individual: United we are stronger

Through sacrifice, we can win the war

Now understanding the fact that when comparing these two, the combat film and the war genre, it is easy to see that there are overlapping characteristics of both.

The movie that I will use to demonstrate these concepts is Saving Private Ryan (SVP). As trendy and big as the movie is, its an amazing piece of cinematography that still awes me each and every time I see it.

In terms of the War Genre, as it is based in WWII. The concepts that are found in SVP are as follows:

For the semantic we have the platoon leader, who is played by Tom Hanks, acts as the mentor and the father figure to a group of young soldiers displaced from the comfy American homes to fight against the enemy. Even though many could be considered the grunt or the cherry, we will say the Matt Damon's character Private Ryan is the young recruit that is taken under the wing of the experience captain. The Arena of death is all over Europe as it stats on the beaches of Normany, and moves into France. For the syntactic, the war machine is the entire US military fighting during WWII. Throughout the whole movie you get the sense of the "US" as we are watching an emotionally charged, dramatic look into the life of soldiers during this vicious war, who are fighting against an enemy that we can not understand and are simply the people getting in our way and trying to stop us from attaining our ultimate goal.

The Combat Film:

Considering this repeats itself in several ways for the semantic and syntactic approaches compared to the war genre, I will only speak about the ones that do not overlap. For the semantic approach, there is also the concept of serving the platoon. When Ryan finds out his brothers are all dead, he decided that the best thing he should do is stay and fight with the only brothers he has left, his platoon mates. This platoon is his family and he decides to stick by them, even though he could have a free ticket home to his mother back in the U.S.

For the syntactic approach to the combat film, there is the concept of celebrating glory or heroism. This is shown in many ways, but one obscure reference to this concept in SVP is when some of the soldiers are talking, and one, being a sniper, imagines a clear line of sight shot from a mile away, taking out Adolf Hitler, and the war being over. Its said in a boastful way almost, a glorious thing it would be for this young man. Then there is the ultimate sacrifice for the country, where every one of the soldiers is over seas fighting for the freedom of their fellow countrymen. Private Ryan himself, as mentioned earlier, turns down a free ride home to stay and fight, potentially sacrificing his life for his new family and the cause. In the final battle we are shown a great example of the team vs individual idea, where each part of the platoon is given tasks to do in order to prepare for the oncoming battle. Together they all prep this little town in defense and together they stand protecting an important bridge. Throughout the process, as it happens in war, some soldiers are lost along the way, but due to their sacrifice and what they are able to do as a whole, they achieve their goal.

Response to Class on 10/28 - Dreamworlds

Considering the class period was used to watch Sut Jhally's "Dreamworlds 3" and we were asked to do a response to turn into class, the response is copied below.

There is no hiding the fact that, in our day, objectification of bodies is everywhere. In a recent class I was in, we watched a documentary called Dreamworlds, by Professor Sut Jhally of UMass. The version we watched, done in 2006, was the third in the series, as it has been updated over the years. The overall theme of this series is about how music videos, specifically pop and hip hop videos, objectify and demean women. Ultimately, while valid at one point, I believe the documentary is out of date and is no longer as true as it once was.

Broken down into several segments, the documentary would show specific music videos, many of them from the hip-hop/rap genre, and described how women were set up and positioned in relation in the artist and video. Of the concepts that Jhally defined, one was how these videos construct femininity. Basically, Jhally suggests that women are there for sexuality only. They are half dressed (or less), her most desired characteristics is sexuality, their bodies are segmented into parts, and the true identity of the women does not really matter; the women are only there to excite and be the object of men’s desires. Another notion brought up was these women are controlled by men. Whether it is in terms of throwing money at them or they are told (possibly forced) by men to do certain things. Using various examples to prove his point, Jhally successfully shows us how these women are nothing more than an object. There is focus on breasts, butts, legs, and lips, but rarely is a face or any endearing characteristics of a woman shown in the videos.

In further definition of the “Dreamworlds” woman, Jhally paints a picture on how these women define the gender. Of the many outcomes offered, women portray themselves as follows: women determine their identity by the way men view them, women are nothing but sexual objects looking for male attention, women are denied subjectivity, and among others, they are only there to fill a man’s desire.

While I do think that Jhally brings up some very valid and appropriate observations using great examples in the videos, I do believe that the his ideas are flawed. When I first viewed videos used as examples, many of them were dated and were around in the early to mid 90s. Admittedly, there were some more recent examples, but most of the truly shocking videos were older. He also seemed to keep showing the same videos over and over again. I think some of the accusations that he offered are not as valid when you compare them to current videos.

To try and prove a point, I went to YouTube and searches the most viewed music videos. Of the most viewed music videos, the artists in the top ten are as followed: Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Shakira, Eminem (featuring Rhihanna), Miley Cirus, and Pitbull. Of these videos, only one (Pitbull’s “I Know You Want Me”) was close to the concepts described by Mr. Jhally. In this video, it contains women with accented features (breasts, butts, etc) standing around a singing Pitbull. They are being used as sexual objects, but not to the extent as described in Dreamworlds. Of the male videos on this list, the tendency seems to be more egocentric to the artists, with cameras focusing on them and their talents (e.g. rapping, dancing, etc). With the female videos, they are dressed scandalous, but they, as the artist, are the ones being focused on. Yes, they are selling themselves and their sexuality, but it is a different topic when they are the focus of the video. They are not arbitrary objects used to objectify women and be the focus of a man’s desire. In many cases these woman are strong willed and can often be described as empowered.

If this was seven or more years ago, this video would be much more relevant to the music video culture, but, today, the concepts do not hold as much validity. If anything artists are focusing on themselves more with dancing and spectacle that draw the audience in, the use of sexuality has become more non-gender specific (meaning males are also objectified), and the sexuality that is used seems to be a background element when compared to that of the artists.

Response to Class on 10/21

One of the things that I have enjoyed about this class is the ability we have had to learn about media across the board. It is not just film, or TV, but we bring in all aspects of media we see today. This includes the documentary, reality TV, games, and so on. Being able to relate the topics we learn to different types of media has been extremely useful to me and I hope to be able to take what I have learned and use it in what I end up doing.

In class we spoke about a couple different new topics. The first was structuralism, which is a method for anlyzing the deep structuring logic of cultural products and practices. Continued, structuralism stresses its meaning from its relationship to every other element in the system. Or another way to see it is the structure of the media is established based on relational encounters.

To give us an example we viewed a scene from Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. In this scene Hitchcock uses alternating shots where we look at the character, Melanie, it switches to an object we assume she is looking at, and back to her.

To give an example of this, I took a clip of an alternating shot scene from another one of Hitchcock's movies, Vertigo, which I hope shows up properly into this account. It is shown below.

In this scene James Stewart is following a women, and the entire 1:45 clip is nothing but showing these alternating shots. The structure of the scene is built around James Stewart acting and reacting to the woman he is following.

Secondly, we talked about semiotics. Which is the study of signs and signification. This is about how meaning is generated in various forms of text.

Concerning this, there are certain denotations, which signifies and has literal meaning. There are also connotations, which imply and have an implied meaning.

One of the concepts we focused on in class were the signs associated with structuralism. There are three categories of signs: 1) Icon/iconic signs - something that can be seen or perceived, 2) symbol/symbolic signs - where the signifier does not resemble the signified, the relationship must be learned, and 3) index/indexical signs - the signifier is not arbitrary but is directly connected to the signified, people can usually figure this out.

To give an example of the I am sitting in my room looking at a painting of a baseball player sliding head first into home where a catcher is blocking the plate. To the casual observer, in regards to this picture, the iconic signs would be the baseball, or the overall picture. The symbolic signs would the catchers equipment. It might be a necessity to describe why the one player has on such pads and gear. A majority of what is happening in this picture would fall under the indexical sign. Take for example, the dirt from the player sliding would indicate he is not just laying on the floor, or the extended are of the catcher preparing for receiving the baseball, these are not necessarily known, but the indications of the surrounding elements would most likely lead the observer to understand what is happening in the sequence.

The last concept we learned was about "The Gaze." Another term being scopophilia which is the desire to see. Hitchcock uses this element quite a bit in his films. The two that are great examples of this are, of course, Rear Window, where the entire film is based around one man watching what is going on in his neighborhood. The second would be in Psycho, where the disturbed Norman Bates is seem looking through a peep hole into the unsuspecting hotel guest. The gaze, arguably, is a humanistic element of life, that we like to "see" into the lives of others. Take for example the tabloids or any magazine that focuses on the lives of celebrities, athletes, politicians, or any number of other people. It is not just a sexually driven concept either, it is one that, in some, is just a concept of "people watching."

Response to Class on 10/14

No matter now many times I have been taught about Expressionism and Realism, the concepts, for some reason, just don't stick to me. I dont know why, since the concepts truly are simple. So when we attacked this as our topic today, i was cautiously optimistic that it would stick this time.

As we started out with simple definitions, they were stated as such:

Realism - celebrating the raw material. Film as a recording art. Dealing with mise-en-scene.

Expressionism - manipulate the raw material. Film as a recording art. Dealing with montage.

* as a side note it is about "expressing" our own perception of reality.

Throw in formalism, and you take me from one unknown topic to complete confusion. In comparing expressionism and formalism we see that expressionism is more about using film as anexpressive force, using film to lead emotion, and feeling that the content involved in the film is more important than the form.

Formalism deals with assembling of the film elements and it forming a new reality that is created in the minds of the audience. The audience becomes an active participant in the creation of art.

We went on to view clips from several movies, focusing on The Godfather and how this ties in to these concepts.

One of the topics discussed in class was the concept that there is no such real thing as a true realist film. Even in documentaries there are elements that have expressionistic overtones that sway the eventual outcome and how it will be viewed by the audience. Bringing up the example of one of the very first documentaries, unfortunately I forgot its name, about Alaskan natives survival. The scene we watched was about a man who is fishing through a hole in the ice and he catches something. It is big. Just as you think he is gaining ground to pull it to the surface, whatever it is, it drags him back to the hole. The man desperately tried to get the attention of his fellow hunters, and as he struggles with his catch, he waits, being dragged over and over, until help arrives. Eagerly waiting to see what the man has caught, it emerges, and it is a seal. A large seal. Upon viewing it, the scene seems raw and real. Then we are notified the person who did the documentary asked the tribe to hunt like their parent did. Not the way they did. Although the hunt and scene is real, it is not the way these people truly live. It was a tainted documentary. Professor Voytilla also brought up the example of the hit documentary "March of the Penguins." Another heart wrenching tale of beaten animal, aided with the sounds of music. That did not occur in nature. It sets mood and tone to the documentary.

In this concept, and as voiced by Professor Voytilla, there truly is no such thing as a truly realist film or documentary. It can not happen. There is always going to be some aspect of it that changes the reality of the situation.

So with this mind set, can it be safe to say that no reality has ever been truly captured on film?

Based on these facts, I have no reason to go against this thought. The camera angle, the surrounding noise, the lighting, everything as an expressionistic overtone to it that in some way or another will sway the audience's view of the subject being captured on film. Now I dont mean for this to be a negative aspect to filming, or to negate those who consider themselves "realist" in their film making strategies, but there is always going to be an element of production that hinders the true form in with the subject really is.

I had never even considered this thought before and it is something that I have really taken a grasp to. I will always remember this concept, and while I will continue to enjoy documentaries, like Planet Earth, I will always have an understanding of the elements that are in the way of how I am viewing the "reality."

Response to Class on 10/07 - The Odessa Steps

Responding to Odessa Steps scene from The Battleship Potemkin is a bitter sweet thing for me to do. Directed by Sergei Eisenstein, and considered to be one of the most influential films of all time, this film is, like most silent films, dated and hard for me to understand fully. The film was done 20 years after a failed revolution against tzarism, and Eisenstein, based on historical recollections of the event, used expressionism to build the movie and story into a way he saw fit for the film. Even though this, still, after seeing it several times, is hard for me to understand and really grasp, I will do my best to break it down and try to understand the meaning behind the sequence.

Before delving too deep into the specific, Eisenstein was huge on aesthetics, and use montage shots as one of his greatest tools. There are different types of montage shots used, which we spoke about in class, so I will not go into them. These are metric montage, rythmic montage, tonal montage and intellectual montage.

In regards to te aesthetics, we learned Eisenstein rebelled against the western narrative conventions. He did this by using natural locations (the Odessa Steps are real, and are an on location shot). He did not use professional actors. As easily seen in the Odessa Steps scene, the men, women, and children used are very real, they are not glamorous, or "pretty" by any means. Eisenstein understood the effect that these non-pro actors would have on his scene. There is real emotion, they are real people, and it worked very well. Another aspect to his aesthetics was the social group over the individual. Overall, this is another easily seen concept in this scene. There are huge amount of people that flee down the Odessa Steps. The is no one person whose voyage you follow. It is pure chaos that is demonstrated beautifully through this aspect. The only slight two exceptions to this is the lady whose son was shot by the soldiers and the lady who is shot and her carriage falls down the stairs. Momentarily, we follow the woman pick up her wounded son and plea with the soldiers to stop shooting. She is then shot and the scene continues. The same thing happens with the lady and the carriage. She is focused on momentarily, shot, and falls. This leads to the montage of the carriage making its way down the steps.

We were asked to look for certain aspects within the scene. These are:

Mise-en-shot:

The mise-en-shot in this sequence is pretty straight forward, and assists the ideas that Eisenstein had on aesthetics. The camera is always stationary, as it gives the feel of documenting the actions taking place. The shots range from long range, to mid range. The long range shots are effective in Eisenstein's case because it ties into the ideas of aesthetics properly. There is rarely a focus on an individual, and these shots allow the viewer to see an entirety of what is happening. There are countless people frantically running down these stairs, and the pass the camera as quickly as the enter it. He focuses on the group for a majority of the shot. He also uses the mid range shots where a smaller number of people are shown, but still not focusing on any one individual, although certain characters are shown more often than others. Another interesting aspect of the mise-en-shot was how Eisenstein would flip to a camera view from the top of the stairs where you see the Russian soldiers, in a line, walking down the steps toward the citizens, dropping guns and firing. This omniscient view, in association with the Russian soldiers, shows where the power of the characters lay within the shot.

Contrast:

While there is many aspects of the different uses of contrast seen in this scene, one of the ost glaring to me is the contrast of light used in viewing the faces of the citizens, running terrified for their lives, and the faces of the soldiers walking down the steps at them. In a "faceless enemy" type of way, the soldiers faces are covered and darkened so that the viewer can not see them. They are the dark and evil bad guys to the scene. The light saved for that of the citizens fleeing, as that you viewer can see the emotion and terror that is everyone within the group.

Symbols:

Symbolism has always been one of the more difficult aspects of critique for me. I don't know if my knowledge level is not up to par, or what it is, but it is hard for me to get what symbolizes what. From what I got the different parts of the scene that are used to symbolize something else are the actual steps, the three lions, the carriage, and the lady who is carrying her son. What exactly these mean are unclear to me.

Elevation:

Understanding the fact that even though this is a tip of the hat to the failed rebellion that actually took place in 1905, the actual battle portrayed on the steps of Odessa actually did not occur in the same place in real life. It occurred on a nearby street. The steps were a way that meaning could be given to the scene. The soldiers start off at the top of the stairs, or in other words, on top of the citizens. As the citizens try to work up to them, they stop them and force them back down the stairs where they came. They did not have the ability to get all the way up to the top of the stairs, or in other words, they did not have the ability to successfully rebel against the tzar. Any time someone would fight the traffic running down the stairs and head toward the soldiers they were killed. In addition, as mentioned above, the elevated nature of the soldiers was a power position, being above them, making the citizens appear weaker and below the soldiers.

Typage:

This is one aspect, that even though already mention, Eisenstein was very impressive at using. The people chosen to be in this film were not professionals. They were real. This was a real situation, and only real people could portray it as such. This is done by looking at the people used. They are rugged, rough, and you can easily tell they are working class people. There is one man who is shown several times who has no legs. He moves around with his arms. This is exactly the way typage is used here. This shows that this is a true representation of the people involved, and because the people used are normal people, they have the emotions involved in the situation, because they, in one way or another, really were involved in it.

Response for Class on 09/30

Returning back to the last posting on archetypes and The African Queen, we reviewed who/what were the specific archetypes. I got some of them correct, but not entirely. I believe I missed the point that there can more several different characters who enter and exit specific archetypes throughout the film. In my response, I kept it pretty limited and straight forward, where, as spoken about in class, it is much deeper than I figured it to be.

On the ones I was unfamiliar with, (i.e. shape shifter and the trickster) the characters mentioned in class were the river and Charlie (whose intentions change over the course of the movie) and the trickster, which was considered to possibly be Charlie, as he made fun of monkeys, interrupted a church service, and at one point tosses his cigar to the village people.

Before heading into thoughts and responses to what we learned in class I wanted to talk about one of the readings we were assigned this week. These were the articles by Bela Balasz entitles "The Close-up " and "The Face of Man"

Even though I could go deeper into the actual article, "The Close-Up" brings up some really interesting points, that I agreed whole-heartily with. Balasz talks about the emotion behind the close up and how the viewer is positioned in relation to the character, and how the viewer is able to perceive the character. This is a concept I agree with because, when used properly, the close-up has an ability to set a scene with a certain emotion or tell much more to the story than anything a script would ever be able to get across.

In "The Face of Man" I considered one section to strike me the hardest. It is the last part of the reading entitled "Mute Dialogues." The concepts the Balasz speaks about is that use of the close up and how facial expression changed toward the end of the silent age, and an entire films could be dictated simply by the shades and tones ones face could portray. He stated "We saw conversations between the facial expressions of two human beings who understood the movements of each others' faces better than each others' words and could perceive shades of meaning too subtle to be conveyed in words." This is a very telling statement. It did not matter what the lips say, all that matters is what the face says.

In class we were lectured on the origins of cinema, and although this is something that many teachers in many classes have gone over, its interesting to catch the small differences that each teacher brings up in the scope of cinematic beginnings. Here we talk about theory, where the first formal theory was in 1916. As elementary as it may seem today, for the time I could see how the theory was pretty ground breaking and ahead of its time. Especially considering it was just barely the 20th century.

It really is amazing to me how much we take knowledge and information for granted. Think of when movement was first recorded. We were shown and taught about Muybridge's Horse. People wonder, among the motion of the horse, if there was ever a point where all four of its legs were off the ground. This is something that is simple and basic to us today, but it took a series of photographs, before the 20th century, to make that a known matter of fact. Although the first recorded movement was simple and boring by our standards, and possibly even to those looking upon it, I could only imagine what was going through the minds of those witnessing this recorded motion for the first time. It probably blew the mind.

We went on in class to talk about art, and what exactly art is. As talked about by Professor Voytilla, Art is form and content. Form is the means by which a subject is expressed. The content being the subject of the artwork.

We broke off into groups to further the concept, and what our group decided was that art is an object or action that can be interpreted by a person. It can entertain and inspire, and it can also be used as a motivational tool to better a person. The true meaning of an artistic piece is subject to the viewer. It can be an emotional expression of thought or action or an expression of though through a medium.

How are sports considered art?

Sports are entertaining, there is an audience, it inspires, and is conversational. The ways in which sports are a different form of art is because it is unscripted, it is live, contains actions, and the outcome is known only after it occurs.