Response to the Laura Mulvey book

I've seen Citizen Kane a few times, and each time it never fails to compel me, especially the shots taken of Welles at extreme low angles within the newspaper office. It is extraordinary to me that this film, after half a century, is regarded as one of the greatest films ever made. Thus I was interested in reading Laura Mulvey's interpretation of the metaphors present within the film. One thing that she acknowledges is the absence of a typical Hollywood female lead. Although it is obvious that the film is centered around Kane, it never occurred to me that the film is constructed to avoid the accommodation of a glamorous tone. This construction also creates confusion surrounding the characterization of Kane. It is difficult to determine whether he is good or bad, as the circumstances of his childhood, can be credited to his personality disorder, yet the construction of the narrative also (through the interpretations of many) fluctuates and distorts balance. Ultimately, I do not believe the film can be defined nor placed within the boundaries of a metaphor or two. Rather, the nature of the film itself requires multiple viewings and interpretations, similar to the way one mans life cannot be summed up in a sentence. It is the unique construction of the film and the lack of the glamor effect which forces the viewer to consciously ponder the material and reach their own conclusions as to its meaning.

WIlder Interview

The interview with Billy Wilder was very entertaining and interesting. He was incredibly frank and honest when discussing behind the scenes aspects of films he had made. He seems like a character from this interview and like he has a very big personality—as I’m sure most talented directors do. A lot of what he says in the interview reminds me of the documentary short we watched in class which talked about Hitchcock and his tactics in terms of film production. Both Wilder and Hitchcock seemed to have very personal relationships with the actors who participated in their films, whether positive or negative and sometimes even both at the same time.

Auteur Theory

Wollen’s article about the Auteur theory was interesting in the way that it addressed how different European directors have been recognized and analyzed differently in accordance to their work in either Europe or the U.S. I really wasn’t aware of this phenomenon at all and was surprised when I read this. I also liked the idea that the director is not the sole author of a film. The Auteur theory seemingly opens of possibilities in terms of aspects of production.

Make up Blogs

Christie Formalism and Neoformalism

When I first read this Christie reading and when we first talked about the history of formalism and neoformalism in class, I was pretty confused. It was hard for me to think about these ideas in relation to Russian cinema. It was only after watching various movies and realizing that we always attain meaning through formal elements of film that I began to realize that this concept was simpler and more accessible than I had previously thought. One of the most important lines in Christie’s essay is that “Formalism, they believe, unlike some structuralist and psychoanalytic methodologies, crucially implies an active spectator…(Christie 62).” Christie further illustrates this point about the active spectator by talking about schemata that organizes our perceptions. These ideas allow us as viewers to watch films and simultaneously look for the elements that influence and guide our understanding. Once we find these elements in one film, it becomes easier to do the same thing with other films.

Einstein

In Einstein’s “The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram,” he talks about hieroglyphics as a way to introduce the reader to the idea of montage and how combining certain shots or images creates a new meaning. Einstein says that when we combine two hieroglyphs we read the combination not as their sum but as their product. He claims that “by the combination of two depictables is achieved that representation of something that is undepictable.” He says that this is montage and this is what we do in film. When we apply the film Potemkin to this same idea, we can clearly see that the juxtaposition does create a new concept of meaning, sometimes so instinctively and so seamlessly that we do not even realize that our brain is in fact drawing these connections. This reading was interesting because of the highly scientific and objective basis that Einstein assigns to a seemingly simple idea. He goes on to explain why we understand what we understand when we see what we see on film.

Schrader and Film Noir

Schrader’s work on film Noir starts by giving a brief historical background of the genre. He says that darkness and cynicism had become a major part of American films during the war but that by 1949 movies had become incredibly dark portraying American life in a negative way and in a way that they never had in the past. His article from 1972 discusses the interest in Film Noir at the time because of this renewal of themes of darkness in American films. Schrader cites four catalysts responsible for this genre’s creation and popularity. First, Schrader talks about war and post-war disillusionment, post war realism—which related to disillusionment in that now audiences wanted a more honest look at American life, The German influence, responsible for the “chiaroscuro” or shades of contrast in film noir, and the hard-boiled tradition—a way of thinking and acting that did not sugar coat or romanticize. In looking at Double Indemnity, we can clearly see evidence of Schrader’s point that film noir id not about conflict resolution but a certain mood. In Double Indemnity, we do not get the happy ending or the conflict resolved, but instead are left with a dark and brooding feeling and an almost complete lack of resolution. This film which is stylistically and substantially film noir, presents a cynical view of American life seemingly making the point that there is no way out of misery beside inevitable death.

Psychoanalysis

This excerpt talks about the ways in which psychoanalytic film theory from is expanded upon and changed used in different ways than it was in the past and applied to different, more specific fields. The article discusses the use of Freud’s castration theory and fetishism as it is applied to race relations and colonization. The article also discusses queer writings and theory and the way that psychoanalytic theory is used for “against the grain readings.” Although psychoanalytic film theory of the 1970’s focused somewhat exclusively on the gaze and in Mulvey’s work, on the gaze that men enact upon women, these theories have been rearranged and reconstructed in order to apply to more distinct and selective categories and areas of academic study.

Citizen Kane is such an astonishing portrait of a man. What is so interesting about this portrait is that our protagonist, the main character, who is described as larger than life in the reading, is almost villified. His behavior is reprehensible throughout the film, especially his behavior toward his wives. It is interesting how the author points out that there is no glamorous female in the film, she mentions that this may be because the cinematographer was not a "glamour" shooter. Still, by making the wives seem almost plain it makes Kane seem even still larger. No one can subvert him, no one can make him love... he is an untouchable figure.

Citizen Kane

I also read Chapter One, like Melissa. I think that her last line is specifically interesting, as this is what i was thinking throughout the reading. When if first started it, I was confused as to why I was reading it. I actually went back to double check that I was doing the correct reading since there was no mention of Citizen Kane until the end. It is pretty shocking that Kane came out of an urgent need to make some quick money in order to fund a different project. It seems almost impossible that one of American Film History's most famous films was born in such haste.
I also thought that the description of Welles new technique for filming Heart of Darkness. I have personally never seen the film, but I think that the continuous first person shot would get annoying. When reading I was thinking of some of the filming in Blair Witch project, where it is almost entirely done through a first person shot. I think that for character development, it is important for the audience to at least sometimes see the character from a third person perspective. Through that perspective, the viewer can understand their mannerisms and behaviors. I am curious to see the film and if the entire thing was actually filmed this way.

Interesting! (though irrelevant)

While writing my final paper on "The Royal Tenenbaums", I found something interesting. I remember while discussing the movie in class, someone pointed out that it is Owen Wilson's voice that gives the commentary during Richie's tennis match. However, during some research, I found out that it is actually Andrew Wilson, Owen and Luke's brother, who does the voice over. But considering their voices do sound a lot alike, it is strange that Wes Anderson decided to use him for the role. Woohoo, trivia.

Psychoanalysis in film

I found it interesting how the psychoanalytic theory was placed on film to address overarching cultural themes. It considered film as another form of societal discourse, and thus a platform to study how certain members of society reacted to other members of society. This was applied to such topics as race and sexuality, and how to understand the actions taken by people who mimic or go against the grain of societal hegemony. The application of Freudian theory offers some serious weight to the arguments on such ideas as the mimicking of cultures that are seen to be dominant. One of the most fascinating elements of this article was when it talked about the representation of the body in horror films. Psychoanalysis can be applied to how we depict and perceive the body of the villain or monster; the elements that make this character particularly repulsive or “monstrous.” Psychoanalysis can be applied to virtually every element of cinema, because it is an art form that can be perceived on many levels, and brings out a certain purpose of reaction on the part of both the artist and the audience.

Post Production and Release of Citizen Kane

Seeing as how the first chapter in The Making of Citizen Kane, is already taken, I'll discuss the post production chapter. However, the most interesting thing about this chapter, was the discussion of special effects. Special effects nowadays seem to go hand in hand with any film. No matter what movie is released, be it sci-fi, comedy, etc. it's bound to contain special effects. This was no different from Citizen Kane, despite the fact that films made during that period hardly contained such sophisticated effects. I digress, for what I found truly fascinating is that Kane contained special effects in the first place. Many of the shots portrayed in the book that contained such effects were surprising. For example, the way that the surrounding image blends with the beach that was shot (during Kane and his guests' travels to the Everglades) is deceptively realistic. I had no clue that a majority of the shot was simply a special effect. Then again, if Citizen Kane was made now, I'm sure the level of high definition in which movies are shot would make the special effects sequences far more obvious. Still, you have to commend Welles on a terrific job relating to the special effects.

The Birth of Citizen Kane

For this post, I decided to write on the Carringer chapter entitled, Heart of Darkness. I chose this one because I thought the events leading up to the making of Citizen Kane are of particular interest because, in essence, one of the most popular films in movie history was only a result of some extreme extenuating circumstances. Let's backtrack a bit: RKO studio head George Schaefer approaches Welles and gets him to agree to sign a contract to start production on the film (Heart of Darkness) the summer of 1939. The contract entitled Welles to a whole lot of leeway concerning his degree of control of the film- something unheard of for the time. Schaefer, however, had other plans in mind-- he did not want to disrupt the creative vision of his director.

"To get him (Welles), Schaefer violated one of the most sacred canons of the industry. In granting Welles the right of final cut, he allowed creative considerations to take priority over the studio's means of protecting its financial investment."

What was so interesting to me was how much Scheafer believed in Welles when no one else did. While the team worked tirelessly on production, they were receiving complete bombardments of criticism and "lack of confidence" votes from critics and other industry officials alike. When Welles's budget outlook turned out to be more than double the terms as outlined in his contract, coupled with the fact that RKO was in the middle of a financial crisis, Heart of Darkness took a backseat. It was during this stressful period and time of urgency for Welles and Schaefer that the birth of Citizen Kane could be formulated. I guess this classic film is proof that the best ideas often come from the most perplexing of times.

Makeup Blogs

Bellour, The Obvious and the Code
This reading was interesting, but at the same time I found myself waiting for it to end. I would have never viewed the car scene in this way, and didn't think it had nearly this much meaning or importance behind it. The part where he discusses how Vivian is viewed longer and in better lighting than Marlowe, who seems to blend in a bit with the background. It's fitting because this is when we begin to learn the truth about Vivian and her part in this entire scheme. Although the camera seems to favor her, Bellour also mentions that Marlowe is the only one speaking in the frames by himself, but we can hear both Marlowe and Vivian talk when she is framed alone. This shows his importance in her life whether he is seen or not, and how he plays a role behind the scenes.


Schrader Notes on Film Noir
This reading was very interesting and probably my favorite one from this class. Film noir is a fascinating type of film, and like Schrader said, it is one that has gone mostly unnoticed until recently. The realism and gritty undertones seen in these movies, along with other classic noir elements like lighting and use of shadows make these films more interesting than the flashy action movies that are popular today. Back then it was about getting a point across, and using your creativity to make a exciting, yet though invoking film. The emergence of the femme fatale during this time was also very important, because it allowed women to break out of their stereotypical roles and become the antagonist and branch out. One statement made in the article that I found interesting was the comment on how water is used a lot in film noir. I have seen many films, but never actually noticed this quality. However, thinking back I have realized than many films have water as a subtle, yet prominent theme. Either through rainy scenes, or wet streets after a rainy scene, rivers, or pools.

auteur theory

An auteur theory is what reflects the directors creative vision.  An auteur is developed over time, its personality and character, it does not come out of the blue.  I agree on Wollen that directors should not be close minded it is essential to consider more than one opinion or idea in their development of films.  Another key element on auteur theory is the idea of a "camera pen", the idea that directors should wield their cameras like writers use their pens and they should not limit their imagination to traditional narration.  What makes a director unique is their openness to new forms of portraying their message though their films 

Wollen and Auteur Theory

The Wollen article was interesting to me because it was over motifs. Motifs in my opinion are the formal element that I have enjoyed learning about the most in class. Wollen uses the article to talk about how directors use motifs in films do define and give way to particular things. I thought it was interesting to see Wollen’s Auteur Theory. Before I really didn’t have much knowledge about Auteur theory was. I figured that it was through the vision of the director and the director only, and I was also interested to find out that Auteur theory also involves the viewers as well. I thought that the entire creativeness and all the unique things that go into a film were all involved in Auteur theory. One thing that I found interesting and caught my eye was the debate between the auteur theory and metteur en scene. I didn’t really come away with a clear understanding as to what Wollen was trying to discuss. I understood that there was some discrepancy between the two, but never came across a clear and definite answer.
Like many others I also enjoyed reading Hawks example of auteur. I don’t have much knowledge or background of any of Hawks films besides the film The Big Sleep that we watched in class. There were many different motifs that went along with the movie. I did some further reading and learned about a technique called the “MacGuffin”, a type of plot device that Alfred Hitchcock made famous. In The Big Sleep Hawk used a technique similar by creating the character of Shawn Regan. Regan has suddenly disappeared after spending a long time working for General Sternwood. Although the General is concerned about Regan, he is more concerned about stopping the renewed blackmail

Wollen and Auteur Theory

"What the auteur theory argues is that any film, certainly a Hollywood film, is a network of different statements, crossing and contradicting each other, elaborated into a final 'coherent' version."

I think that statement pretty much sums it up. In Wollen's article, he draws upon the auteur theory and the many implications from which it derives, everything from the creative vision of the director to the breakdown of codes and even a conscious effort on the part of the spectator to understand the meaning of the text. I like how Wollen used lots of examples, particularly Hawks' films (because we have already viewed one of his films, making it all the more easy to identify those structures of auteur theory).

I also enjoyed the beginning part of the article where Wollen put the auteur theory into a historical context. In this way, I think it is easier to track the roots and development of such a critical piece of film analysis and makes it not only more thorough, but also more conclusive.

Auteur

Before reading the Wollen article, I thought that an auteur was a director who had creative input in all realms of the filmaking process, not strictly limited to directing. What I gathered from Wollen's article on the Auteur theory, is that that my previously held view of the definition of the auteur is a predominantly European view. He also makes it clear that although we have a potential definition and concept of the auteur, it is not conclusive. He specifically mentions the controversy between conflicting definitions between the auteur and a metteur en scene. An auteur's meaning through film is constructed a posteriori (after the fact) where a metteur en scene creates meaning a priori (before the fact). Now while this makes sense as a concept, I don't fully understand how this can be determined or definite and why one may be valued above the other. I hope we take some time in class to go over these concepts and look at some examples.
I also enjoyed his use of Hawkes as an example of an auteur. Although I have not seen any of the Hawkes' films he mentions in the article (other than The Big Sleep), I was able to use The Big Sleep as a jumping off point to help me conceptualize his use of motifs and themes throughout his vast array of work. Through this example, I came to understand that the auteur theory was more focused on the continuity throughout a director's work in terms of their style and motifs. Wollen makes this clear toward the end of the article by saying "what the auteur theory does, is take a group of films, the work of one director and analyze their structure." The auteur theory is important because it allows for critical analysis of a full body of work of a director, understanding their lasting importance and impact in the world of cinema.

Response to Auteur Theory

I had always believed that the auteur theory only extended to the vision of the director, and that it implied that everything within the film was methodically constructed and placed there for a specific purpose to create meaning. Thus, I was equally shocked when the article revealed that the auteur theory is not limited to the director itself. It very much involves the active decipherment on part of the viewer, in order to decode the ultimate meaning of the film, which at times is obscured by the introduction of other elements and often unconsciously placed by the director themselves.

I find it very interesting that the underlying principle of the theory is to uncover the motifs present in a group of films of a specific director and then analyze that structure. I find this even more appropriate now when I think of films by the Coen Brother, and how the themes in many of their films are constructed within a dark comical world, characterized by miserable people and money motivated murderers, where the women are usually the last ones standing.

The end of the article explains, "it is an illusion to think of any work as complete in itself, an isolated unity whose intercourse with other films, other texts, is carefully controlled to avoid contamination." After reading this article, I realize that taking a critical eye is necessary when analyzing films within a specific auteur's repertoire. Without doing so would only reveal a piece of the whole, leaving meaning obscured and overall appreciation diminished for variations within a repeated message.

Auteur Theory

Wollen's article on auteur theory was quite interesting. I studied this in both Nazi cinema and a German film noir type class I have taken, and I find it very interesting. In the past we only talked about German auteurs and the really emphasized that the auteur was the sole created of the product. The directed, produced, and sometimes even starred in their films. Individuality and personal creativity were stressed at the time that auteurs were allowed in early German cinema. This article focuses on American auteur cinema, and the fact that it cannot be solely one person's idea, but instead that one person has certain motifs or styles that are repeated throughout films. These styles are what we should focus on when calling someone an auteur and not so much the individual movies. This concept was a little confusing to me because for so long when I thought of an auteur I thought of someone who created an entire movie and was able to control almost all aspects of it. However in this article it seems to encourage people to focus more on the repeated aspects of a filmmaker instead of looking at each film individually.

Auteur Theory

In his article on auteur theory Wollen discusses auteur theory as a way in which directors use certain motifs throughout their films to give their work a defining structure. I found Wollen's explanations of gender as a motif by certain directors to be extremely intersting. Wollen discussed Hawks thoroughly and pointed out how in many of Hawks's movies there is underlying homosexuality, the ideal social group is an all male group, and how often males are being humiliated and dominated by women. Through the motif of a homosexual like, weak man and a domineering woman Hawks says something misogynistic about women as a whole. They are undesireable to the ideal community of his film. Additionally, Hawks was not the only director who used gender as a motif to undercurrent his films with messages that were less than respectful towards women. Wollen discusses how in Boetticher's films women have no real significance. They are valuable only as a provoker or vehicle for male action. Finally, in Ford's films women are nothing but domestic drudges trapped in a life of subordination and service. Although Ford's women do a little better by being sentimentalized; three influential and great directors have as central components of their auteur misogyny in one way or another.

Wilder Interview

I really enjoyed reading the interview with Billy Wilder. Although I could not relate to everything he said as I have not seen all his movies, like "The Apartment" and "The Emperor's Waltz," I have seen quite a few of his movies. I especially loved hearing him talk about Audrey Hepburn as she is one of my favorite actresses of all time. He describes how she had a one of a kind "X" factor, and he also attributes this "X" factor to Marilyn Monroe, and I agree completely. I fall in love with Audrey Hepburn when I watch her unlike any actress I watch in the movies today, and I fell in love with Marilyn Monroe in a very similar way when I watched "Some Like It Hot." I also thought it was interesting how Wilder preferred black and white over color, and even when almost everyone else was using color still used black and white for "Some Like It Hot." I found the idea of timing jokes also very interesting. I found "Some Like It Hot" to be such a funny movie, and I especially enjoyed the scene with the maracas, in which we find out "Daphne" is engaged, so I thought it was really cool that one of the reasons I found it so entertaining was because it was timed, and that this timing was inspired by the Marx brothers. Finally, I thought the personal anecdotes were hilarious, especially the one about how he couldn't pee and the one about calling six girls and pissing off his screen writer after too many martinis.

Schatz and Genre

In his article on genre Schatz discusses how genre actually has little to do with setting, but much more to do with characters and how they embody certain cultural types. He uses the example of "The Hardy Girls" to show that setting does not make a Western, but instead the idea of a hero coming in to either save or ruin a place and eventually leaving, makes a Western. Further reflecting upon these points, he explains that the reason genre films are so popular and abundant, despite the fact that they follow linear, predictable plots, is because they speak to timeless conflicts that can not be as casually "solved" as they are in these films. Schatz touches upon how we as an audience enjoy exploring these conflicts that are either present in our own lives or completely foreign to us. However, I think the popularity of the genre film runs deeper than this. As audiences we do not simply enjoy the genre film because we get to explore a cultural sector's problems and attitudes, we enjoy the genre film because we get to see a cultural sector's problems and oppossing attitudes solved and resolved, and we, more often than not, get to see people live happily ever after. Movies have always been an escape, and in exploring timeless problems we all can relate to on some level or another, what is more escapist than the classic happily ever after ending of the genre film?

Auteur Theory

Although auteur theory is explained very clearly in Wollen's article, I find it difficult to comprehend through simple writing. Having never seen the film discussed it was difficult for me to understand how auteur theory was shown. However, I found his description of auteur theory and how it was used and has lasted very interesting. It seems that directors who have mastered auteur theory are films that one can instantly recognize a distinguishing aspect about, since the director is the "author" of the film, despite being only one of many people involved. It is their vision and understanding that comes through in the film.

The Auteur Theory

I found it interesting that the auteur theory was not so much another method of approaching art, but something of an unconscious style. The individual is the one under scrutiny, and it is a body of work, not simply one piece that is examined. The exploration into the methods that Howard Hawks employed in his films was fascinating. The way he created stories was broad, but what linked them were the motifs. This is the basis of auteur theory and what sets it apart from other art. It is not necessarily what the film itself is trying to say, but what the artist is preoccupied with and expresses through the film, possibly without even realizing it. This is not what I had originally understood the auteur theory to be. This film style survived, as it was said in the reading, because it was indispensable. I believe it was theorized during that early period of cinema, because cinema as we now understand it had been around just long enough for directors to build a body of work and see the pattern of motifs. The auteur theory is something that cannot be dismissed from the cinematic process, nor should it. it can now be seen celebrated in the workds of modern directors such as Tarantino and Scorsese, both of whom have distinctly individual focuses and cinematic styles. Scorsese, I think, would be the most interesting and prevalent modern comparison to the reading's analysis of Howard Hawks. Though he has a body of work that is usually associated with violence or the mafia, he has made vastly different films such as "Kundun" and documentaries like "Shine a Light." The auteur theory allows an organic type of life to continue to run through the film industry, even as it seems that they may be running out of ideas.

Schraedar and Film Noir

Before coming to class I was still somewhat confused as to what exactly Film Noir was. I had a general ideal, but still had a little bit of confusion. I liked the fact that Film Noir was described more so as a style than classifying it as a genre. Typically when I think of genre, I think of music and the many genre that fall within music. At times there are way too many, and some tend to get lost along the way. When I think of something being classified as a style I think of something in particular that is distinguished from the rest, and that’s what I think the article was trying to do. When we talked about Double Indemnity and how Film Noir was used, such techniques as lighting, tone, and the mood of the film where all characteristic of Film Noir and were also illustrated in the film.
After going over those techniques in class, those almost immediately stood out to me. In the scene where Walter Neff was ringing the door bell to come in and how he was cast by a shadow, then as Mrs. Dietrichson is coming up to the banister and the lighting techniques that were involved in their entire first meeting, where all things that Schraedar talked about as being a part of Film Noir. One thing that struck me as interesting and ironic was the elements that went along with the film being shot during the time of World War II. One thing Prof. Lopez touched on that I didn’t notice was that during WWII food supply was very scarce. One thing that was shown in the Wilder film was the fact that the supermarket shelves were packed with food. Its Film Noir techniques such as that one in particular that would have gone unnoticed if it had not been brought to my attention.

Wilder Interview

I also thought the Billy Wilder interview was the most interesting article that we have read to date. One thing that stood out to me that others also mentioned, was how open Wilder was with the information that he shared. In most interviews that I’ve seen, I’ve seen a mixture of people willing to disclose handfuls of information, and then on the other hand I’ve seen instances where people aren’t willing to share much information at all. Wilder wasn’t shy about “airing the dirty laundry” of the actors at all. He was brutally honest and made sure if people wanted to know particular answers to questions, he made sure that he told exactly how he felt about the situation.
In the film Double Indemnity, he tells why he chose such things as the house and the roles that the characters played and their significance. After reading the interview and going over the notes we went over in class, the film had a whole new meaning to me. One thing that stood out to me was the fact that Wilder seemed to be a risk taker! He didn’t seem to care too much about what people said or thought about him, let alone what was said or thought about the films he made. He would go out and seek out actors and actresses that he thought would be suited best for the particular film he was doing at the time. He was interested in getting the glory and fame or winning an Oscar. In my opinion he more so made the choices he did because they were his, and whether or not Hollywood approved of them, at the end of the day they were his OWN.

Wilding entertaining Interview with Wilder

I found the interview piece this week the most interesting and entertaining. One thing that stood out for me the most was home openly critical Wilder was about some of his leading actors and his staff. He describes their addictions, suicides and death very explicitly. Although most are likely to be posthumous descriptions, it still was somewhat provocative. In most interviews you read currently, the interviewee would calculate and plan their answers as to not offend or receive any negative reactions because of it. I found Wilder to be extremely honest and candid in his answers, which was refreshing. Especially for our generation, we don’t have much experience with these amazingly important historical figures in film so the first hand accounts really bring them to life.
I walked into the beginning of “Some Like it Hot” last week a few minutes late so I missed the opening credits, there fore not knowing what film we were watching until about half way through when the characters are talking about jazz music and Joe says “Some like it hot”. Throughout the entire film I kept looking at the Jerry/Daphne character wondering where I had seen him before. I knew that I had not seen many films from this period, so I thought that possibly I was mistaking him for someone else. It wasn’t until about half way through that all of a sudden the though popped into my head, “It’s the guy from Grumpy Old Men!”. It was such an interesting moment because I has always thought of Lemmon as the actor who plays all the old men. Hearing Wilder talk about him as one of his favorite actors really put into perspective Lemmon’s long film career way before our time, and also give him tremendous credit for having such longevity in the film industry.

Cameron Crowe on Billy Wilder

I found the interviews done by Cameron Crowe very interesting. Having seen several of the movies they discuss, it is fascinating to hear some of the insight of Wilder and the small techniques and tricks he used to make the films what they are. For Double Indemnity he discusses why he chose that house specifically and how he chose certain actors to play a part. He also talks about why he chose to shoot Some Like it Hot in black and white, explaining that most people actually forget the film is not in color after several minutes and that the content of the film is far more important.

Many articles about film discuss what certain types of film are and why specific techniques are used, but I found it far more interesting to hear from a directors point of view why he chose to use these techniques, the thought processes behind them and their purpose within the picture.

Cameron Crowe interviews

I really enjoyed reading the interview of Billy Wilder, it was nice to hear his opinions of his films and of Hollywood at the time. The part I enjoyed most was when Crowe asked if he took German expressionism and used it in his movies. I took a German film class last semester and we covered German expressionism. I went back and watched Double Indemnity again, and I could see some of the themes like the use of lights and contrasting between dark and light in this film also.

I liked that Wilder said he liked to take chances with his films and wasn't too worried about that others said. He picked actors and actresses that he thought would be best for the roles regardless of whether they were famous or not, and he didn't worry about other people's criticisms. He knew what he wanted and didn't compromise, which is not something that always happens in Hollywood. His films seem to go against the grain, which I think makes them even more remarkable. With Double Indemnity the idea of having a woman and the supposedly "good" guy be the murderers was risky, but Wilder took that chance and made a great movie. Also with Some Like It Hot, he said that Monroe questioned his use of black and white but he just blew it off and went on with the film, and although it would have been interesting to watch in color, I think black and white makes the viewer pay more attention to the movie.

Schatz... and a whole lot of Grammar

Schatz's article, which was so heavily focused on grammar in the initial phase, could have used some refining itself. For one, his description of the difference between genre and genre film was a bit hazy- they sound pretty similar to me. I did, however, like his analysis of how film genres are constantly refined. This might be the result of changes in economy, technology, or even the morphing values of society. Whatever the reason may be, I can definitely see how a horror film such as Psycho is not exactly the same genre of a horror film like Saw for example. Regardless, however, we develop certain expectations within the larger umbrella of genre- and those establish the foundation for the genre's "rules."

What was really rather perplexing was Schatz's whole discussion of film in terms of semiology. Although I felt his comparison (which said something similar to a linguist studying utterances is the same as a critic studying genre) was a bit of a stretch, I felt that the following line just about summed it all up: "Thus a genre can be studied, like a language, as a formalized sign system whose rules have been assimilated, consciously or otherwise, through cultural consensus." But as thorough as that thought may be, the depth of the "grammar of film genre" left me not all too thrilled. Guess I'm just not a fan of grammar in the first place.

Response to Thomas Schatz

I agree with David’s analysis of the article. The beginning of the “Film Genre and the Genre Film” left me a little lost. It was difficult to grasp what the distinctions between film genre and genre film were, especially due to the fact that both titles utilize the same words and were easily jumbled in my head. Regardless, I found it interesting how Schatz addressed the versatility of genre itself. I found the explanation of ‘determinate’ and ‘indeterminate’ genres especially intriguing. According to Schatz, “Determinate genres [are] entered by an individual or collective hero, at the outset, who acts upon it, and finally leaves” (698). Meanwhile, “Genres of indeterminate space generally involve a double (and thus dynamic) hero in the guise of a romantic couple who inhabit a ‘civilized’ setting, as in the musical, screwball comedy, and social melodrama” (698). I think analyzing the genre within these two separate categories can reveal plenty about understanding the structure of a film. I never considered that conflict is just as persistent in indeterminate films as well as determinant; though its weight is shielded by a “civilized, ideological stable milieu” which helps to construct the narrative. Thus, as the conflicts of westerns and detective film are determined by the volatile environment, the same is influence by normalized society within films of indeterminate genres. I hope to keep this analytical viewpoint in mind next time I view a film like The sound of Music or Oklahoma.

Film Genre and the Genre Film

Schatz’s article on “Film Genre and the Genre Film” was a bit confusing at first, but later on in the article he started to explain a few things more clearly. The confusion put forth within the first few pages can be attributed to, in my opinion, the “language and grammar” characteristics of genre. These two topics in any communication reading are what I fear most, but his descriptions of character and plot were much clearer in getting his point across. For example, his descriptions of the differences in films that take place in the old west were the most interesting. He made distinctions between Western movies involving the lone hero (for example, Wyatt Earp) and Western films that include resolutions of conflict through song (for example, The Harvey Girls). While both movies take place in the old west, the two films resolve conflicts and portray conflicts in completely different ways. Basically, both films portray the Western Film setting, yet only one of the films truly encompasses the spirit of the Western Genre. Still, even without reading this article, I feel like I already had a grasp on the differences between the film genre and the genre film, but this article certainly furthered my knowledge of it.

Film Noir

Film noir is a style of film that sets it's tone by using light and contrasts of black and white. It is realistic and an artistic movement that was a response to WWII. "Double Indemnity" is a film noir movie. Because I watched "Double Indemnity" before I read this article I was struck throughout my viewing of the film by a) that the movie was in black and white, b) the contrasts between black and white the film uses and how these contrasts set tone and reflect dialogue, and c) how I did not find the mistress very appealing. Upon reading this article I was able to appreciate how the semi unappealing mistress and the contrasts and well as the black and white reel, the three things that were most obvious to me watching the film, came together to create a larger system and style. Also upon reading the historical motivations and ideas behind film noir, I was able to make sense of why in fact Phyllis was not very attractive. Film noir is supposed to be about realism and honesty, it's supposed to give us a stark and accurate reflection of the world we really live in. In this honest system why would an evil, murderous, cheating women be someone we aspire to know and lust after? Although Walter does, the system of lighting and music makes her slightly unappealing to the audience, helping us NOT get lost in the seductress's beauty, but see her for what she honestly is, a disgusting sociopath.

Schraeder & Film Noir

I found Schraeder's article on Film Noir very helpful and informative. I had always heard the term film noir but never quite understood what it meant. He describes it as a style, rather than a genre, that is characterized by tone and mood along with the lighting and camera techniques it uses. Film Noir increased after WWII, when its audience was looking for harsh honesty about the world they were in. It is interesting to see that after the war the audience would have wanted to see this type of film, but Schraeder also considers this period the most creative in film, which I am not sure I would agree with. I found that the techniques used in film noir are very creative but more just a break with traditional ways of making films.

Schraeder describes some of the stylistic techniques used in film noir. He says that the majority of scenes are lit for scenes at night, and horizontal lines are used as rarely as possible. The lighting used creates shadows for the actors to fade into and the setting is lit the same way as the actors, creating less of a distinction between the two.

Schrader and Film Nor

I like most everybody who posted, enjoyed the articles of Film Noir as well as Double Indemnity. Lighting and the use of lighting in films was something that stood out to me and something that I found intriguing. It wasn’t until taking the class did I realize how important the element and impact of lighting in films has. I also agree with what Kelly posted in saying how she couldn’t understand why Phyllis Dietrichson didn’t appear to be that attractive in the film. Most of the time when I think of a mistress, I think of a woman who is very attractive and someone who every man dreams to be with. In the beginning scenes she is shown as being flirtatious and to me the CU/MS of Phyllis were to compensate for her not being attractive. I also found what Palace and Peterson talked about concerning lighting and female heroines. Before I hadn’t really seen a lot of black/white films and didn’t have to much care for them. For the most part I’ve enjoyed the movies that we’ve watched. If it weren’t for lighting I don’t think that black/white movies would have the same effect on viewers and would make understanding somewhat different. To compensate for not being in color, lighting is the closest thing filmmakers have to color.
I also loved the way that Schrader helped to better explain what film noir is. What she talks about as being qualities of moods and how those are emphasized in films. From there he goes on to break down further the historical context and categorizes what he labels as the 4 major conditions in American society that helped lead up to the “birth” of this particular style

Schrader and the Film Noir

I found Schrader's "Notes on Film Noir" to be a very interesting document. I liked how he first introduced us readers to a more clear definition of what film noir is- a style of film, though not a genre, that emphasizes subtle qualities of tone and mood. He then broke it down into a historical context by categorizing the four major conditions in American society that led up to the "birth" of this style: war and post-war disillusionment, post-war realism, the German influence, and our “hard-boiled” tradition (namely, the pre-set conventions of which society had become accustomed). This helped to better answer my lingering questions about why the sudden popularity.

Next Schrader gave a thorough breakdown of film noir’s recurring techniques, but glossed over the discussion with regards to theme. I would have preferred that he delve into the various themes film noir embraces rather than give a brief synopsis about a passion for the past, the present, and a fear of the future (one major overarching theme in film noir).

Finally, I though Schrader's belief that the film noir period of Hollywood was probably the most creative period in its history was a rather bold statement. Though I can definitely see film noir as a major creative undertaking and a true art form, I'm not sure that I would consider it Hollywood's finest masterpiece. Still, this might be the result of the fact that I am an American film consumer who perhaps lacks an eye for viewing style. As Schrader put it, “film noir is more interested in style than theme, whereas American critics have been traditionally more interested in theme than style.” That I can agree with.

Schrader Readings and Film Noir

To my suprise I really enjoyed Schraders reading, it was insightful and informative. I was immediately shocked to learn that film noir is actually not a genre but defined by its tone. This makes sense since sometimes the lighting of different shades of black and shadow can have more depth than the plot itself, or even be a reflection of the dark plot. Watching "Double Indemnity" before having done the Schrader reading was a learning experiment for me. Without knowing much about the film I was truly able to grasp what a film noir is all about. The play on black tones and white shadows slivering through the crevasses which were thoughtfully placed there, all create a dynamic in the film which essentially plays a tremendous factor in the dialogue. At a certain point, the fact that a light is turned on or off can hold great meaning in the scene. The play on the color black, projects a mood which is dark, mysterious, and impatient- at any moment with the flicker of a light we expect something to happen.

I have never really considered film noir to be interesting but after viewing "Double Indemnity" I realized that it is truly not only a tone but an art. Since every single detail which causes a shadow or light to come through, or even prevent it, has been carefully done on purpose and in essence working side-by-side with the verbal dialogue to tell a story.

Film Noir and Double Indemnity

I greatly enjoyed the two articles on Film Noir as well as Double Indemnity. In Place and Peterson's article, I found the descriptions of us of light very interesting. I was very intrigued when I read their description of how film noir uses lighting on female heroines to create a specific look for them. Throughout the screening of Double Indemnity, I couldn't understand why I didn't find Phyllis to be that attractive or seductive. She is presented as a seductress for Walter right away in the first image of her in her robe. We then are directed to look at her ankle as she walks down the stairs through a CU tracking shot as she walks down the stairs. However even with these obvious images and her flirtatious nature, I found something unappealing about her. Place and Peterson explain this phenomenon through use of lighting, "Heroines were shot in tough, unromantic close-ups of direct, undiffused light, which create a hard, statuesque surface beauty". This use of lighting on the female protagonist adds to the films solemn and dramatic style.
The use of lighting in these films is probably the most key element to their style and meaning. As both authors mention, film noir is not a specific genre of films, more a set of techniques and themes. One thing I found interesting in the article by Schrader was his depiction of the 3 phrases of film noir. One thing that seems so obvious by didn't specifically come to my attention until I read it in Schrader was that with the widespread popularity of color films, there was really no more possibility for the noir style to continue. Today, when films attempt to use film noir style they must film in black and white.

Film Noir and Schrader

I would always overlook those black and white old fashioned dark films of the late 30's to late 40's. My mom loves these types of movies, and whenever I would ask her what she is watching, she would answer and I would just walk away because I was never interested. Little did I know that I would come across the same movies later in my life and practically adore them. Whether it’s the fast-paced, witty dialogue, the intensely created sexual undertones, or the story that keeps you on the edge of your seat, films among the film noir movement manage to withstand the tests of time. Before setting foot in this class, I knew that film noir’s weren’t exactly a genre, so the bit about such claims in Schrader’s article did not surprise me. However, what did surprise me was the fact that film noir went through an evolutionary cycle, so to speak. The first phase in the cycle is what I would identify film noir to be, “the private eye” phase. The second phase was similar, but it took a more consequential approach, that is, the problems within the film were on a larger scale (government corruption, street crimes, etc.). The last phase was the surprising one to me, where films are even more cynical, displaying a so called “tragic hero.” I was surprised to see Panic in the Streets on the list, however. This was one of the few noir films I viewed before coming to this class, and it didn’t seem as grim as what Schrader would explain. Not only did the main character solve his case, but he came back home to his wife at the end. Maybe I just missed some message the film presented that would suggest its release during the third phase of film noir. Besides this, I’m pleased with the selection of films among film noirs that we are viewing, because it is quickly becoming my favorite type of film.

Thoughts on Bazin, Schrader, and Place & Petersen

Bazin

Regarding the Bazin reading, I found the description of the transition of sound into film rather vague and therefore, focused my attention more to his detailed explanations of the different aspects of Montage. I understand that he was trying to communicate the premise that sound carried a greater air of realism to montage, helping to reduce the symbolic meanings between messages; however, his reliance on the aesthetic changes disoriented my understating of the function sound has made. Thus, I felt his main goal was to detail the evolution of the language of cinema based on the incorporation of new devices such as depth of focus, and accelerated montage as the techniques separating post 1938 film from silent film, in contrast to solely the advent of sound.

Schrader’s “Notes on Film Noir”

Like RILWSON1, I was also unaware that film noir is regarded as a specific period of film history. I always considered it to be a genre of film, only utilized for themes fueled by gangsters and crime. The more I read, the more I found myself appreciating Schrader’s passion for film noir and his expressive criticism against its neglect. He explains,

“The fundamental reason for film noir’s neglect, however, is the fact that it depends more on choreography than sociology, and American critics have always been slow on the uptake when it comes to visual style. Like its protagonists, film noir is more interested in style than theme, whereas American critics have been traditionally more interested in theme than style.”

I would have never considered this issue of theme vs. style to be the case of its neglect. With this basis in mind, it is easier to understand why westerns and gangster films receive more praise since their themes are not hidden within the style of the film. Film noir requires attention to detail and it is through this necessity that it achieves a higher level of meaning, adding to its unique character and the tone it creates.

Place & Petersen “Some visual motifs on film noir”

I really enjoyed this article since it provided an overall list of the techniques involved in categorizing a film as film noir. I never imagined that so much detail and thought could go into the lighting of one room, let alone one person, and how this could heavily determine the mood of the scene (whether it means making an interior appear claustrophobic or a person appear desperate). Like the process of juxtaposing shots in montage to create a certain meaning, lighting can also produce meaning through the way it is utilized. One example from the article is a scene from the film In a Lonely Place. A high-light is placed under Bogart’s eyes, creating a sinister effect which not only makes him look demented but also suggests he is an unstable character. Having just viewed Double Indemnity, I definitely remember noting the specific use of shadows and light vs., dark. Now I understand the greater function they fulfilled and can bring this new knowledge to my analysis.

Schrader's Notes on Film Noir

I found Schrader’s writings on film noir to be thoroughly engaging and informative. It’s close analysis of film noir sheds a good deal of light on both films of this period that we have screened this semester: The Big Sleep and Double Indemnity. For one thing, I was not aware that film noir was not considered a genre, but a film period equivalent to French New Wave or German Expressionism. This adds a different perspective, because though I knew that the tones were darker and it had quite a distinct style of dialogue, I had always associated film noir with crime dramas, and this isn’t particularly the case. One of the most interesting and applicable points brought up in the reading about the creation of film noir was that of the social circumstances that surrounded its birth. Film noir was brought on by the disillusionment of society following the over-simplification of cinema and the start of WWII. The main point is the disillusionment that people felt towards society after long periods of hardship, and its worthy of note at what point this article was written. At first when I began to read it, I was confused about the author’s reference to old movies as being contemporary, and their more fatalistic style appealing young viewers to it and that of the old film noir period. Then I noticed the year of publication: 1972. This was after the country had suffered through years of the Vietnam conflict, and there was a prevailing culture of disillusionment once more. I have also noticed a trend in cinema to depict realistic, and many times somewhat fatalistic stories in films today and I can’t help but think that this is a recurrence of the trend, brought on by the wars we’ve seen for the better part of a decade. When processing the analysis Schrader made toward this film period, many films meet many of the criteria set by film noir, I would venture to say most notably in the execution and acclaim that The Departed accomplished only three years ago. Other films of note are direct throwbacks to the film noir style, including Brick and the The Black Dahlia.

Sound in the Bazin Reading

I found it interesting what Andre Bazin had to say about the introduction to sound in cinema. Like the introduction of any new technology, it was looked at with apprehension. People that are so used to one method of doing something are obviously going to have a tough time accepting a revolution of established technique. However, like Bazin said, sound did not come to destroy the established cinema, but to fulfill its prophecy. He refers later to how there is a dividing line that held cinema back from seeming realistic, and that was the barrier of sound. When this was introduced, cinema did not die, because the cinema in place wasn’t the sole representation of the art form. Art is an organic, living, breathing institution that builds upon what has been accomplished in the past through inspiration and technological innovation. The ultimate goal is to represent the world as we perceive to the best of our abilities, in order to convey messages or purely out of the desire to portray narrative. Sound allows narrative to become more complex and adds many stylistic options to the creation of a story. I would say that introduction of sound in cinema is tantamount to the introduction of color in its effect on progressing towards realism.

PSYCHO

According to Antonin Artaud; "When we no longer find fulfilling meaning in either ourselves or in life itself, a painful cleavage is created: “the poetry which we no longer succeed in finding in the world around us or inside ourselves can then appear on the wrong side; consider the crimes whose perverse gratuitousness is explained only by our powerlessness to take complete possession of life”, Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960). O’connor.

The hotel in which Bates ran is very similar to his fantasy world which he conducted. He was in complete power of both and therefore achieved somewhat of a Godliness power. It is made evident at the beginning of the film that he expressed his artistic creativity through his hobby of stuffing birds. In order to preserve the bird Norman took the necessary measures to maintain the external body. Norman also applied this concept when attempting to immortalize his mother. Stuffing the birds essentially immortalized them for their bodies truly never leave the world. Essentially, Norman does the same for his mother as he creates the illusion she is still alive. In doing so he gave a voice to his mother, authoring her every word and action believing this to be the solution to his repressed feelings and problems in reality. His artistic ability for creating the illusion of life was not only projected in his work, but onto the strategic murders of his victims.

Montage and the Reader

In Eisenstein's article about montage he talks about the use of montage throughout Japanese art and culture, while pointing out that the cinema is seemingly the only art form in Japanese culture that is lacking in montage. Eisenstein quotes Nobuchi and says, "it is the readers who make the haiku's imperfection a perfection of art." However, when quoting Nobuchi Eisenstein isn't just making a statement about the use of montage in haikus, but about the use of montage in all art forms. Montage works, and works powerfully, because of the art forms audience. People do not live in a vacuum, and it is our cultural expectations and the connotations of the images used in montage that audiences are aware of that makes montage an engaging and powerful way of presenting art.

In Battleship Potemkin Eisenstein uses montage editing to create tempo and rhythm to help tell the story and give the film meaning. For example, during the scene on the steps of Odessa, Eisenstein sticks quick shots of stone lions in with the action in order to convey to us the rising action and anger of the scene. It is our understanding as an audience of what a lion is (fierce, powerful, dangerous, brutal) that allows the shot to add meaning to the sequence. If the audience had never seen a lion, did not know what a lion was, or thought that lions were actually gentle creatures, this shot would not have made sense and may have detracted from the sequence instead of adding to it. Finally, montage editing adds to the experience of a film because it intellectually engages the audience and forces them to make connections, the same way the heiroglyphic language of the Japanese does.

Montage?

I really liked the article's beginning in that it traced the roots of Japanese culture as a means of unveiling modern Japanese cinema. That "timeline" was a great way of helping me to better understand how this has evolved over time and is a true process. Eisentstein begins by explaining how cinema is a montage. He spoke of its beginning form, the hieroglyph, which later morphed into brush and ink. This use of symbolism and representation was then compared to how we use montage within the context of the cinema: ".., combining shots that are depictive, single in meaning, neutral in content- into intellectual contexts and series."

He then transitions into the use of haikai, an ancient form of Japanese poetry, and explains how their use as an ideogram provides a means of uncovering an abstract concept. While referring to Japanese pictorial art, Eisentstein says, "Is not this process that of the ideogram, combining the independent "mouth" and the dissociated symbol of "child" to form the significance of "scream?"

Eisenstein later goes on to further analyze these montage sequences, particularly in specific shots from the film Potemkin. He explains that we as an audience combine these elements into one whole and uncover reasoning according to our own relations to the event. Eisentstein says, "Step by step, by a process of comparing each new image with the common denotation, power is accumulated behind a process that can be formally identified with that of logical deduction." That is motage.

Eisenstein readings

I consider this article hard to understand because he introduces many topics at once and confuses a little.  What I got from the reading  is that cinematography as the author introduces it, is montage.  The author mentions what montage should be compared and "how the representation of objects in the actual (absolute) proportions proper to them is, merely a tribute to orthodox formal logic." (131).  What I understood about this quote is how do we relate an object to its own logic and how we make sense of it.  To put it more simple I relate cinematography to montage in the sense that cinematography is the decision making in the lighting and the camera when recording photographic images in films and montage is a technique that uses special effects including music to introduce compressed narrative information  

Eisenstein reading

I thought it was a very enlightening statement when Eisenstein suggested that montage was an “…unrolling of an idea with a series of single shots…” rather than a stacking of shots like building blocks. This is an idea performed masterfully in his epic staging of the Cossacks vs. the people on the steps of Odessa. There are continual shots that switch from the people and then to the Cossacks, both from long shots and close-up. What is important that also has to do with the tempo of the sequence is the way the film takes its time to show the brutality of the Cossacks. The framing has everything to do with the feel of the sequence because it heightens emotions, leaning toward the people’s side.

The Shots of the Cossacks are never close-up; always from a wide shot, displaying them as a wall of unwavering force descending on the people. The quick shots to the civilian reactions show the fear, anger, and pain as they are brutalized one by one. All of these elements show what Eisenstein meant when he referred to the montage as “unrolling of ideas.” These are not simply pictures stacked on top of each other, but multiple points of view fitted together with a purpose to keep a steady tempo while heightening emotion and accomplishing its point. This is what I took from the article in relation to the film we screened, though I admit I found this reading very hard to follow.

Emotional Combinations in Montage

This article provides an overview of the multitude of ways montage can be used to create meaning and new images within film. Often times montage does not explicitly show an event, but rather it alludes to it. Through this process the viewer is often forced to create the story themselves and make connections implied through the film. The type of montage that stuck out to me most strongly when reading this article after seeing Battleship Potemkin was emotional. In this film strategy, the filmmaker creates a specific emotion within the shot not strictly relying on the image itself but the psychological reaction the viewer will have with the image.
For me, this was used successively but almost to an extreme in Battleship Potemkin. When the militia began to squash the protesters, the peasants and working class became dispensable. The scene itself is dramatic enough with the placement of images of the citizens running away in hoards cut with the militia walking in sync with guns down after them. Eisenstein takes this scene to a new level when he puts children in harm’s way. He uses two children and utilizes different techniques with each. First with the young boy stranded on the steps. His helplessness is included in a montage sequence where we then see hundreds of feet clambering down the steps. As a viewer, at this point my heart was racing in free for the little boys life. Einsenstein’s montage created an extreme feeling of fear and suspense as we awaited the little boys doom, which we eventually see of people stepping on him as they attempt to run to safety.
In the same scene, the baby carriage is to me even more emotionally jarring. We first see it teetering on the edge of a step as the guardian is shot and she looses her grip on the handle. Then we see it begin to roll down the stairs among a crowd of people who we already know as so focused on reaching their freedom that they stomped a child almost to death, so we assume they will be of no help to the baby. In this sequence however Einsenstein does not show us the baby’s fate as he does with the little boy. This leaves the viewer with an uncomfortable emotional feeling of uncertainty and sadness.

Einsenstein Reading

I also had a difficult time trying to figure out what montage was. I found the article in general a little hard to follow. To me it seemed to jump from one thing to another and by the time I thought I knew what was going on he went on to another topic. From what I understood he seems to be comparing montage to cinematography. In the article he says "the shot is an element of montage. Montage is an assembly of these elements" (132). It's not a perfect comparison but in when discussing cinematography you think about the elements within a shot and how they are put together to form a larger meaning. Montage is an assembly of the elements like cinematography is an assembly of elements. However, montage seems to add a little more to this description. When discussing the methods of montage in the Japanese theater Eisenstein focuses on the acting style and how their acting ans transitioning effects the viewer. The same person may play many different characters, or the same character with different personalities. This causes the performance to be more emotional and have more meaning. So montage could deal with the technical aspects of film like cinematography, but it can also effect the emotional side of the story.

'Montage' in The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram

I found it interesting how Eisenstein used specific traits of Japanese culture (theater, language) to explain the multiple functions of cinematography which are completely absent from Japanese cinema. 'Montage' was the main element Eisenstein addressed which I found advantageous to my understanding of Potemkin as well as my understanding of the concept.

Though difficult to follow, I hope I perceived the article well enough to make my own sense of the word. Eisenstein explains, "The picture for water and the picture of an eye signifies "to weep"' the picture of an ear nearing the drawing of a dog = "to listen" (128). The list goes on and he explains, "It is exactly what we do in cinema, combining shots that are depictive , single in meaning, neutral in content - into intellectual contexts and series" (129).

When it comes down to it 'montage' is like an explosion of images rolling one shot after another which cannot be contained within one frame. Though having been described as a series of shots which function as "building blocks" with a steady rhythm, Eisenstein argues the complete opposite explaining, "montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots - shots even opposite to one another: the dramatic principle" (140).

Thus looking back to the steps scene in Potemkin, it is easy to see how the viewer understands a shot of a woman with a pince-nez immediately followed by another shot of the same woman with a bleeding eye signifies that she was shot in the eye. Although the process of her getting shot in the eye was not shown, the sequence of the shots and the images contained within the shots construct this appearance.

Ultimately, when seen separate from each other the images are abstract forms and act more like pieces of information; however, when sequenced together it is very easy to construct emotion and nonexistent space.

Response to Arin's Post/Eisenstein Readings

I agree with Arin when it comes to aspects like tempo and color within films. Throughout my film watching career, I thought the most interesting and important parts of the film were changes in speed, color, or lighting. Each time there is a change in one of these aspects, I knew for sure that something plot changing would happen.

Tempo, as I would notice it, is incredibly important in depicting an action scene. It doesn't matter what exactly the action is, whether it is a fist fight, car chase, or a shootout, the way the camera moves (speed-wise) will change. One of my favorite instances of this is shown a lot in the film Fight Club. Whenever Edward Norton or Brad Pitt would be fighting one of the members, the camera often shakes, indicating a new sense of urgency or speed. The camera's movement reflects the intensity of the fight scene and really improves it.

Changes in lighting and color is just as important. In Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, the last scenes take place during a thunderstorm. Just before these scenes, the group of main characters are relatively peaceful, and of course, it is intensely light out. The thunderstorm indicates the arrival of death (who is in human form throughout the film), and his ambition to take the lives of the group of main characters.

This is precisely why the aspects to film that Arin listed are so interesting. They may seem simplistic to execute, but that just makes the meanings implied by them so much more magnificent.

Sergei Eisenstein-From Film Form

One thing that stood out to me that Sergei Eisenstein talked about was, the multiple aspects of film and how those can be related to convey meaning and feeling in film. One thing that I noticed that Arin touched base on was film frame in relation to "frame" of a drawing, and how that is similar to frame-by-frame work in films. I liked when he talked about how Japanese theater makes use of slow tempo, and compares that to nothing we are used to in US filming. He talks about the emphasis they use in particular scenes on "slowing down of all movement." One thing that also stood out to me was when Eisenstein talked about what Japanese most interesting link is in theater. I would have never guessed that it would have been sound. For some reason when I think of Japanese films, I think of animation cartoons. I would have thought to link Japanese theater to sound film etc. I think what Eisenstein was trying to get across was stressing the importance of fundamentals and technique that go along with cinematography.
I also had a difficult time understand what exactly he was trying to get at when talking about MONTAGE?! could someone explain that to me a little better?!
I also enjoyed reading about how silent films reached a new peak as people began to take on to them more and more.

Sergei Einstein from Film Form

Reading Einstein's description of different aspects of film and how they create the feeling and meaning of the film several points stuck out to me. The first was his description of the relation of the film frame to a "frame" of a drawing. He explains that drawing within the paper is similar to fitting film elements into the frame of the camera. Within the paper, one can create a composition any way they want as long as it stays within the edges, although pieces of a drawing can lead off the page, or in a painting a person can be looking outside the frame. Within the frame of a film itis the same idea of composing an "image" or a scene that fits into this frame, but can have off screen space that is not within the frame the audience sees.

I also found Einstein's descriptions of the changes in tempo and color interesting. With tempo, a director can change the speed of the film, such as making a scene that would in reality take about a single minute, last for several with "cuts" (which he also explains opens up the possibility for new methods that stage acting cannot allow) through the use of stop motion or slow motion. When reading this I actually thought about two scenes from The Royal Tenenbaums, (one related to tempo, and another related to color and tone). The scene when Margot gets off the bus and sees Richie, the slow motion makes the scene have a much stronger impact, and the audience takes notice that this is a scene we should pay attention to. It also makes the short time it would have taken her to walk to him seem infinitely long, and the cuts back and forth to their reactions creates an emotional connection that would not be possibile without the use of this method.

The way color and tone can affect a film is also seen in the scene in the Royal Tenenbaums when Richie is in the bathroom, shaving his head, right before he slits his wrists. When the lighting and color go to a blue tone, it gives the film a much more serious, almost eery feeling, and the audience is aware that something bad is about to come since the rest of the film has been full of bright colors and although drab settings, well lit places. The change in color and tone change the audiences perception of what is taking place in the film and catches our attention more so than just a simple cut to Richie in the bathroom doing the same motions in a different light.

The Paradox of Conformity and Non Conformity in "The Man With the Movie Camera"

"The Man With the Movie Camera" is undoubtedly an avant-garde and experimental film. It seems to have no real narrative or plot, shows us what happens behind the camera (something films rarely do), and uses a strikingly wide range of interesting filming techniques, such as when the camera becomes "drunk" in the bar, double exposure, slow motion, split screens, and fast motion. Additionally, the film uses unique transitions such as the extreme close up of the editor's eye and when we actually see the editor cutting together scenes from a beauty parlor with images of manual labor. The film is also singular in the way it uses the camera not just to capture and passively reflect to the audience what is happening in the misc-en-scene, but also to actively reflect what is happening, such as when the camera does a magic act of its own during the shot with the magician. What makes this movie especially memorable, however, is that it seems the cameraman has no boundaries; he even ends up in a beer glass.

Experimental films, a category which "The Man With the Movie Camera" certainly belongs to, are inherently non-conformist, and while watching this interesting film there is no question that Vertov openly flouts our expectations of cinema. Yet, while reading Graham Roberts analysis of the film, especially the chapter regarding the film's history, I could not help but reflecting on the irony of how, when stripped down to just a central message, the film is in reality incredibly conformist. It is not only a documentary and experimental film, but a piece of propaganda meant to glorify Stalin's ideas of "socialism in one country."  The glorification of machines, workers, and transportation throughout the film is in direct concordance with Stalin's goals of industrialization.  Moreover, the portrayal of peasant drunks juxtaposed next to the "good" Soviet worker is a not-so-subtle criticism of the peasantry, who often opposed Stalin's policies, such as in the case of the non-existent grain surplus they were expected to share with the rest of the country mentioned by Roberts.  The film, as a whole, is a celebration of the Soviet city, the heart of Stalin's Soviet Union.

"The Man With The Movie Camera" is a paradox.  Although it shocks us by its lack of normalcy, when examined farther it is actually a piece of conformist propaganda hidden beneath the facade of an experimental film.

Man With the Movie Camera

In the opening credits of The Man With the Movie Camera it was humorous for me to see the words across the screen stating "A film without a scenario." Since I had not read the book upon viewing the movie I knew that this production was one of the first documentary films automatically after reading this. Knowing that it was a documentary, I immediatly tried to detect the message of the film. This was very hard for me to accomplish with all the flashes of scenes and fast imagery in a world I am not accustomed to. However, when the camera flashed back to the audience I was able to understand that there was a profound meaning in the images and political statement being made which I was not able to grasp. I am happy however, that I was not aware of Vertov's message since this enabled me to focus more on the visual beauty which was on screen as well as the musical score presented. I normally do not get this opportunity when watching many films since I am so captured by the plot and characters. Watching The Man With The Movie Camera before reading the text, gave me an appreciation for the art of the film which I am confident I would not have noticed had I known the context and message of the film.

The first of it's kind?

I found Robert’s reading of The Man with the Movie camera to be exceptionally helpful in trying to understand the film. Unfortunately, history is not my strong suit so understanding a film like this in the context of Russian history is incredibly hard for me to grasp on my own. His chapter on “The Historical Context” was invaluable in allowing me to make some sense of a film that made absolutely no sense on first viewing. In addition to Film Analysis, I am also taking a French Cinema class this semester. One of the films that we screened in that class was called Ballet Mecanique. It was made in 1924 by Fernand Léger. The film is only 19 minutes long and is visually similar to The Man With the Movie Camera. In the film we see montage of people, instruments, transportation and machines. In an analysis, the film can be understood as a critique of the rise of industrialization and humans as machines. This came to mind because of the first sentence of the Preface of Roberts book “… [The Man With the Movie Camera] is unlike anything that came before or after it… in the history of film”. Although Ballet Mecanique may not be a political commentary similar to Man with a Movie Camera, it is interesting to note that there are similarities present that Roberts does not allude to. After reading this book by Roberts, I am intrigued to watch Man with a Movie Camera again to get a deeper understanding of the film.

I am pasting below a YouTube link to the first part of Ballet Mecanique if you are interested in taking a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SgsqmQJAq0

Man With A Movie Camera

The ManWith A Movie Camera, was quite interesting to say the least. The more and more that I think back on watching the film, I would have to say that I enjoyed it, in a “weird” abstract artistic way. After watching and reading the film, and the book I came across things that I hadn’t anticipated. Not having any previous knowledge about the film, I thought that it was interesting that one of the first few lines in the book stated that the film had NO formal plot. When I think of all of the films that I have watched over the time, I don’t ever remember a film not having any type of formal plot to follow. I think no having a plot made the film more interesting, but at the same time it also made it difficult to follow. I found the film jumping from scene-to-scene often, and sometimes things didn’t really make sense. I loved the different camera angles such as; ESL, split image, freeze frame etc. I notice a lot of different camera techniques and angles and it made the film much more interesting. This was probably my first and last film to watch without dialogue! Until now I never realized how important dialogue to me is, in the films that I watch. Though it was difficult to follow and understand without dialogue, the sound in my opinion was the “savoir” to helping me understand the film. I noticed an array of orchestral arrangement in the film. I also took note of the crescendo and decrescendo’s that took place. The crescendo’s and decrescendo’s in the film went along with the scenes for the most part and played the role of the Rising Action.

Jordan Goldblum- I had to post on Aleandra's because my blog account won't let me log in.

The man with a movie camera was "interesting".   It is definitely an artistic film which was probably a rebellious move to go against the soviet norms of that era.  There was great emphasis placed on the daily rituals of soviet citizens. I'm not accustomed to watching black and white films, but this one appeared to be rather clever.  The double exposures, split screens , and fast and slow motion appear to be ahead of its time for a movie made in 1929.  The shot of the man being superimposed into the picnic was very impressive.  As well as the shot of the two buildings intertwining.  Vertov was very risky for his time with the sexual overtones of the women riding exercise bikes and shots of women's bare breasts.  Although the movie would begin to drag out at times the change in pace of the music would help it to move along.  

The Man with a Movie Camera

I think that the movie was kind of weird since its my first silent documentary film. I did not really understand how different shots relate to each other. The music made the movie a little more easier to watch and I could relate more the music with the shots that was really going on. What I could understand about the film is that film can go anywhere, for example he films ordinary things like women doing her hair, people getting dressed to go out and people doing sports. I think what Vertov was going for is that cameras can go anywhere but yet they are noticed. The reading did explain certain aspects of the movie since I didn't really understand what was really going on in the entire film.

Really?? A Political Film??

By far, probably the weirdest film I've ever seen. Even from when it started I knew this would be a long screening: no dialogue, black-and-white, awkward sequence of random shots. My theory was reaffirmed after 70 minutes of total chaos- was this a documentary? If so, of what? Soviet Russian life? I could hardly keep up. One second orchestra music is playing as the camera lays wedged between two trains, and the next you hear a soft melody while a woman gets her hair done. Unusual sequence? I should say so.
Graham Robert's analysis of the film The Man with the Movie Camera definitely answered a few of my lingering questions (more like 200). For starters, Vertov made documentaries, claiming they were "the only valid form of film." I thought it interesting how he referred to this genre of non-fiction as "unplayed film;" in other words, clearly this was unscripted and not rehearsed. I can definitely agree with that- had a pretty hard time trying to uncover any sort of plot. But what really took me by surprise was this film's intent: politics. Rather than a whole lot of everyday life shots in 1920's Soviet Russia meshed into what we call a movie (as I had presumed it to be), this was a testament to "the history of the Soviet Union, of modernism and Constructivism- indeed of the cinema itself."
Wow! Who would have thought that so much political depth lay under the surface of a bunch of shots of people sleeping, elevator doors opening, and women packing cigarettes into tiny boxes? When put into the context of time, however, I can more easily understand how the political unrest and upheaval is mimicked by the chaos of what lies on-screen. All-in-all, knowing the director's intent, I get it now (and can see it from the viewing) that his film depicted "the Stalinist policies (which were) about to unfold: crush resistance in the countryside, urbanize, industrialize, purge opposition."

The Man with The Movie Camera

After watching the film and reading the book I found the book helped me understand the movie more. Robert's explanation of the time period and context and the fact that the film was actually political make some of the images we see in the movie (such as the coal miners) more significant.
One thing Roberts discusses in his textual analysis, although it is not related to the context of the film, is how the audience becomes a part of the audience on screen in the movie theater. "The viewer has been welcomed into the film's diegesis. We are invited to join the audience on screen," (48). I found this interesting in the film because it makes the audience feel as though they are included in the story, and that they are pulled out of whatever environment they are in and into this time period to watch a normal day in the Soviet Union.

Response to Man with a Movie Camera

Upon initial viewing, I perceived The Man with a Movie Camera as a film about the reflexive construction of a film and the creation of a narrative of the daily life in Soviet Russia as experienced by the title character (the man with the camera). As I watched it, I embraced it as a documentary, using the titles at the beginning of the film as a guide to lead me throughout its entirety.

Thus, I was appropriately surprised, after reading Graham Roberts novel, to find out that the film also functioned as a political tool used to enhance the power of the Stalinist regime. Graham explains:

"The Man with the Movie Camera, is the product of the state of crisis which led to the abandonment of the NEP and the reassertion of more clearly Bolshevik policies" (14).

Now thinking back, I do remember the confusion I experienced regarding the scenes involving agencies of the NEP. I only assumed that Vertov was highlighting their existence in a positive way instead of victimizing them in a greater agenda toward cultural revitalization.

After reading Grahams interpretation of the film, I now understand that the multiple scenes of industrialization (miners, machines, smoke stacks) were meant to instill a sense of impending economic change in contrast to the traditional agricultural sector. And, that the use of repetition is meant to leave a large impression on the viewer, regarding the role they should be playing in society. Additionally, scenes involving washing are symbolic of "cleansing" meant to signify a purge of of NEP political policy.

Ultimately, while Graham also comments on the way Vertov manipulates the film medium by using many different (and blatantly obvious) editing techniques, his analysis of the political message the film presents is not only necessary but also widely intriguing as it fully explains the function of the film and the way multiple formal elements have achieved this task.

Graham Robert's The Man with the Movie Camera

The Man with the Movie Camera was definitely a stranger than usual film for me. Not only did the film seemingly contain no plot, but the actual film was just a series of shots randomly put together. As I watched the movie, however, I knew there was something more to it. Even the first few “scenes” where an audience gathers into a theater to watch the film gave away the film’s intention to create a story, even if it seems convoluted or nonsensical. Graham Robert’s book about The Man with the Movie Camera helped me (sort of) discover what Vertov was thinking when he created this film. While viewing it, I thought that the repetition of people doing their daily activities was a huge part of the film’s message. Robert solidified my belief; he points out that the movie shows people sleeping, working, and performing leisurely activities, the three major tasks that we humans participate in. Robert also proves his point further, saying that Vertov’s intention was to portray a “perfect” society or a purely harmonized one where nothing is confusing. While certainly not as entertaining as Rushdie’s analysis of The Wizard of Oz was, Robert’s book about The Man with the Movie Camera answered the many questions I had for the film after viewing it.

The Man With the Movie Camera

After reading this book and watching the movie, I realized how much the book helps in understanding what is going on. Had I only watched the movie I would have just considered this a strange experimental film and probably not have given it much thought. However, after learning about what film and culture were like at this time in Russia the film began to make more sense. It was interesting to see how Vertov tied all of the elements together to make a political message. In the book they talk about how the scenes of the streets being washed followed by a cut of a woman cleaning is supposed to symbolize how the cinema needs "cleansing of old bourgeois narrative". Without reading the book ahead of time I would have not connected the two events, and it helped with my understanding of the narrative. Also in the book they quote Vertov talking about the movie, " a little man armed with a movie camera leaves the little fake world of the Film Factory and heads for life...unlike the film factory where the camera is almost stationary and where the whole of life is aimed at the camera's lens in a strictly determined order of shots and scenes, life here foes not wait for the film director or obey the instructions." Knowing that this film was intentionally made to break the typical film mold somehow makes it more intriguing. There is more than meets the eye, and instead of being told what we are seeing and how we should interpret it, the audience is left to figure things out for themselves. You never know what is going to happen next and you are constantly changing your expectations to try and match the film. Overall I enjoyed the book and found it very helpful in interpreting and understanding the film.

Bellour's "The Obvious and the Code"

Although Bellour's detailed analysis of the car scene in "The Big Sleep" was difficult for me to grasp on first reading, our in class analysis of the 12-shot scene along with viewing the shots again helped me to grasp his thoughts about how certain codes dictate meaning. On first viewing "The Big Sleep" in class, I didn't pick up on the subtle differences in the ways hat the two main characters profess their love for one another. However, the focus on the duration as well as the content and level of close-up of the different shots helped to highlight these differences. It was very interesting how when Viviene tells Marlowe that she loves him, she is caught in a close up and completely lit--both elements, which show her to be sincere. Conversely, when Marlowe professes his love for Vivienne, it is not a close-up shot and encompasses both of the main characters. As a result, we as viewers may not take Marlowe's claim as seriously. Bellour also points out how various repetitions in structure can create meaning. He specifically points to Marlowe being shown driving a car, which portrays Marlowe as the active driving force in the narrative. Through Bellour's article I was able to see how I had deduced specific meanings through formal structures of cinema and editing.