Because the movie is alot different from the book, main characters has changed and also the ending.
2. 3
There was some images I saw from reading the book that I remember seeing in the movie, for example when they enter the one cart of the train where they have fresh tomato and other fruits.
At this point, we have read sections of the graphic novel Snowpiercer, and we've watched the film.
Using the aesthetic rubric from our text (please read Chapter 4), assess how well Bong Joon-ho (the director) "translated" the graphic novel into a film. The Aesthetic Rubric includes these four following terms of assessment:
"1. The film must communicate definite ideas concerning the integral meaning and value of the literary text, as the filmmakers interpret it.
"2. The film must exhibit a collaboration of filmmaking skills (the details of which are provided in Chapter II [editing, montage, continuity, camera angles, shots, movement])
"3. The film must demonstrate an audacity to create a work that stands as a world apart, that exploits the literature in such a way that a self-reliant, but related, offspring is born.
"4. The film cannot be so self-governing as to be completely independent of or antithetical to the source material. " (Cahir, Linda. Literature into Film, page 99)
Using a 0-4 point rubric, with 4 being the highest score, assess the film in each area. Then please explain why you assessed it as you did. What you say here will help with Thursday's discussion, so please be clear and thoughtful.
During class, we have talked about arms and it's meaning. Almost everyone has sacrificed their arm expect for Curtis. Also Gilliam have talked about having both arms and how useful it is. Curtis has scares from wanting to cut his arm off but he never brought himself to do it. But in the end, he has sacrificed his arm to save Timmy. Wildford also talked about how Curtis has a destiny but he would never have thought that it was to destroy the train. He has tried to in a way brainwash Curtis and it did not work out.
I strongly agree with Yasminda, in order to fully understand whats going on in the book you need to have words that you can understand. The words should be used as a back up if the pictures aren't explaining the situation enough, or vice versa. But if the pictures in a book or novel are very explicit and clear then some readers can go a long way with just pictures.
I think the language does matter because in order to understand what the author is trying to get you to understand about the story, you need to understand the language which includes the dialogue and dialect. I believe we could understand this graphic novel in any language because we have the illustrations. We may not be able to understand it 100% but I believe we could determine what is happening for the most part. This book can be appealing to many cultures because it is relatable. This situation could happen to anyone regardless of where you are in the world.
In class, we discussed various aspects of the graphic novel, Snowpiercer #1: The Escape (written by Jacques Lob; Art by Jean-Marc Rochelle. Translated by Virginie Selavy).
We discussed matters of plot, character, setting and situation,
as well as how it works as a graphic novel.
We also discussed what Snowpiercer is really about. What are the larger issues at play?
Pick up on one of those questions we discussed in class, and develop your own thoughts more fully.
or--
Consider this:
Snowpiercer was originally written in French. It was called Le Transperceneige, by Jacques Lob and Jean-March Rochette. Here, in fact, is the above image in French:
Here is another scene, in German:
Notably, too, the film we will watch was made in Korea.
Does the language matter? Could we understand this graphic novel in any language? Why/why not?
What is it about the book that might make it appeal to many different cultures?
I think the director did a great job drawing the audience into the film...if you had not read the story. Having read the story, I kind of already understood what was going on with the photo and the dead guy. Looking at the opening pretending not to know what is going on, this is a great opening! I think creating the movie backwards was brilliant!
I have to agree with his analysis of the movie. I think that if you watched this movie multiple times, there wouldn't be much that you would have missed. The director did a good job drawing the audience into the movie but in my opinion it's not the type of movie I would watch multiple times. You can see that Lenny has a condition that makes it easy for him to be a target of manipulation and he is easily confused. He even begins to make his own story at the end of the movie by making "Teddy" the new "killer" of his wife that he must seek revenge on. He really could make this movie go on forever.
This scene shows that Lenny had real memories of his wife, however I think he was also confusing his real memories with distorted information given to him by Natalie and Teddy.
This was the pivotal moment in the movie where I really realized that everyone around Leonard was manipulating and taking advantage of him. In the beginning of the film, we are made to believe that Natalie is the victim and was seeking help from Leonard but we see here that Natalie is only using him. I believe she purposely hid the pens in the house so that Lenny couldn't write down what she was saying to him.
This breaks down Christoper Nolan's perspective on the characters and the distortion we view in the film. He starts off expressing that this is not only a story based on a freaky instance, but on a mental state that actual happens to a lot of people. He also touches upon how the actors felt playing the characters they did. He says it couldn't have been told chronologically, it would be a completely different story of a man being abused mentally by the people around him. It was better to deny the audience all of the information in order. By putting it in reverse we make him a hero. I agree with this, we see him trying to take control of his condition by making ways to remember. Overall, I thought this was an interesting video to why Christopher Nolan did everything the way he did.
Ending Scene:
I want to believe that Lenard isn't the killer, but after watching this a third time and now reading it. I am having second thoughts. I do believe that Lenny could be the killer because after seeing the way Teddy tries to tell Lenny the truth and he puts "Don't believe his lies" on Teddy's photograph. No sooner after he does that, he begins writing down Teddy's license plate number for a tattoo idea. Why? For what reason did he need to do that when he didn't even have enough information at that time to think it could be him. To top it off, Lenny burns the photos while he is in the car. Knowing that he wont remember he did that when he wakes up again. Not only does he tamper with his own evidence, he does it with his clues as well. As far as Sammie Jenkins is concerned, I do believe that there is a slight chance that Lenny could have had him as a client before his accident. But what are the odds of Lenny being diagnosed with the same condition as Sammie? I mean come on. I think that Lenny conjured up all of these other stories in order to hide what he has done. He tries to give himself purpose, but by tampering with his evidence and clues he only furthers himself from any real purpose in life,
Listen to the director comment on how he structured Memento. What new insights does it bring you about the art of film making? What insights does it give you about the relationship between the story and the film?
So, how do you interpret the ending of Memento? Who killed Leonard's wife? Is she dead? Why does he kill Teddy? Does he really have amnesia? Use evidence from throughout the movie to support your response.
In Rear
Window, the psychological activities of Jefferies in It Had to Be Murder is presented by various facial expressions and
body gestures, his conversations with Stella and Lisa, and especially the
selective long shot of his neighbors. The scenes of the ballet dancer, the
Miss. Lonelyheart and the newly married couples, are all apparently biased and
created sense of chaos and cynicism in this middle-class community. Then the
focus of the camera has shifted to the Thorwalds which is the main line of the
movie. In the novel, the stereotyped thoughts and imprudent judges of readers
are guided by the thoughts and judgement of Jefferies; however, in the movie,
the judges of audiences are directed by the swing of camera, the selective shoots
and editing.
Alfred Hitchcock has adapted It Had to be Murder to film Rear Window. In the movie, except the
setting and the plot were kept, Alfred changed the name of characters, added
new roles and story lines and established a new love story. In the original
script, the story is straight and clear, it happens continuously in an
inductive path; while in Alfred’s version, the story has more extents that
filled by the lives of other neighbors and Jefferies’ s observation has
expanded to the whole neighborhood. In both version, if at the end Jefferies
has found his prediction is stereotyped and conspiratorial and Mr. Thorwald is
innocent, the story will be an absurd.
Since we are talking about one of the best directors of all time. I felt that this video Hitchcock touches about his side of the cinematic approach to one of his hit makers "Psycho". Even though this is not Rear Window , I still feel like Hiotchcock uses cutting and other techniques as a way to convince viewers that it just like reading a famous novel
The movie, directed by Hitchcock, adapted Woolrich’s novella “It Had To Be Murder” from literary words to vivid cinematic scenes. Similar to the novella, most shots was from Jeff’s eyes, and the camera and binocular he used to view his neighbor’s daily life. In movie, slightly different from the novel, the window’s of Jeff’s neighbors’ acts as mirrors revealing neighbor’s personalities. For example, the ballerina sits in the middle of her large square window and brushes her hair showing she is confident and likes attention. Ms. Lonely Hearts sits off to one side of her window, a less confident and confused woman missing her other half. The pianist’s windows unlike the other normal windows are framed differently and resemble piano keys. I
In the movie, besides Jeff’s careful observation, the little cute dog is an another clue to foreshadow Mr. Thorwald’s crime. The dog acts as an important character. The camera gives the dog lots of close-up to imply its emphasis. At the beginning, it is lovely and active, playing around in the garden. But one day, suddenly, it is found to be dead with its neck broken. Such great change arises Jeff’s curiosity that there may be something buried in the garden. Without the dog, the finding of Thorwald’s crime can not be so quick and natural.
In the end, owing to Mr. Thorwald pushes Jeff to the balcony, and Jeff was forced to fall down from the balcony to the first floor. The camera zooms in Jeff’s two legs cast on plaster. It is a contrast compared with his former situation in which just one leg of him with plaster. Even though Jeff had to sit on the wheelchair for longer time. But his mood is even better than before because he is filled with accomplishment to find a murder via his own careful observation.
Hitchcock shows us a different perspective on how to view people. He uses Jeff as the protagonist to view others in perspective someone normally wouldn't. Imagine someone watching every move you make without you even knowing, seems kind of creepy right? Hitchcock makes both the read and film suspenseful, either through the words read or the actions shown. Now that we have read the story and watched the film we can compare and contrast on what's different and what is similar between the two. I think it was interesting how in the story we found out at the end that our protagonist is in a wheelchair, but obviously in the movie we see it right away. He leaves us wondering with the subject, was it really murder?
In comparison to the text, Alfred Hitchock did a wonderful jon of creating the film in a way that would capture the attention of its audience the way the text did. They were a few changes that Hitchcock did to make this possible. One of the first things I noticed he changed was the names of the characters. In the text, the main character's name was Hal. Jeffries and was changed to L. B. Jefferies. Inspector Boyle was changed to Lieutenant Doyle. Camera angles and shots also played a major role in the product of translating the text to film. There was a consistent "watching" them of the main character analyzing the other characters to create the story. To help create Jefferies, would have several POV shots in the film for the audience to feel like they're seeing from his apartment. Shots used in this were Pan shots, which we really important to also follow what Jeffries appeared to be looking at.
Both the book and the film found a way to be suspenseful and how the attention of a viewer in different ways. The book makes us think that Jefferies is just sitting in window being noisy by watching the lives of his neighbors, until the end when the let us know he's been in a cask. In the film Alfred Hitchcock added more characters to make it more interesting and added a beautiful young actor at the time Grace Kelly to catch the eye of the viewers. The structure of the translation from the book to the film was very good I think, did didnt alter as much
After viewing Rear Window by Alfred Hitchcock I was once again made aware of a new craft in film- adaptations. The retelling of a short story, or novel through a visual platform. It seems fairly simple on the surface, but when studied further, noticing the actual craft of bringing words written for reading to life on screen requires a more elaborate ability to work details, camera shots and most importantly point of view.
Although Rear Window was based off of the lengthly short story "It Had to be Murder" written by Cornell Woolwich it became a new story all on its own with new themes, cinematic tropes & alternate plot points. These new changes were accomplished by adding new characters.
For example, in "It Had to be Murder", Sam was Mr. Jeff's friends who was depicted as the 'flunky' who would put his life in danger for his dear friends Jeff. On film that type of character dynamic would have to be backed up with tons of background information in order for the viewer to believe it. Why would a man be that adamant about his friend, what is their history in depth? In order to avoid those viewing questions and also ignite an emotional connection between the film and its viewer, Hitchcock took Sam's devotion and introduced Lisa to the story. Lisa's character works to bring the love story plot forward. Something that was absent in the original text.
Through film adaptation, viewers are afforded the ability to get to know the characters more in depth. You get a larger back story on who they are, & what are their little quirks. This shows strong character development.
The cinematic technique of POV was greatly accomplished in this film. Camera shots focused in on specific details in the viewing perspective of the main character. Long shots from Mr. Jefferies window where smoothly zoomed in for close up shots on intricate details that moved the film forward. An example of this is shown when Mr. Jefferies was writing the letter to Mr. Thorwald. The camera shot swiftly transitions from the viewers POV of the room then above Jefferies head using a high angle shot using an aerial dolly to show the action of writing and then a close up shot of the letter and Jefferies hand. These camera shot transitions add to the dramatic element of the film.
Both the film and the literature of Rear Window were very good. Alfred Hitchcock did a good job translating the story but with a couple of changes to make the story more interesting. The film needed more more characters to attract more viewers and of course every movie needs a love interest and action and even suspense and mystery. It keeps the audience entertained throughout the whole movie and it is what makes people watch it over and over again. But with the literature, it gives off a different feeling and this is only in my perspective. As I read the story, it felt darker to me than the movie did. The story didn't say why the Jefferies was looking at his neighbors through his window until the very end. There were less characters too and it was a good idea since it does take awhile to remember people by name and description compared to seeing their face. You also didn't have to focus on so many people at once. But overall the translation of the story was accurate in a sense. The theme and plot didn't change as much and that is what everyone looks for when a book or story turns into a movie.
Here's the opening of Rear Window. How is Hitchcock using the camera here? What types of shots, angles, and movement do you see here? How would you describe the editing -- continuity, montage, a little bit of each?
These are the elements of the language of cinema. Now also consider the language of literature (word, paragraph, description, dialogue, character, mood) How does Hitchcock use his camera to "translate" Woolwrich's story to the screen?
Here is a 7 minute interview with Alfred Hitchcock in which he talks about three types of editing. He applies the first two to his very famous film, Psycho. What type of editing techniques do you feel he uses in Rear Window, and why?
After reading "It Had to Be Murder" the question of "Is this considered literature?" was proposed in class, & a few of us were puzzled when attempting to answer. We all assume, "well if its being read in an atmosphere of learning- well then why wouldn't it be literature", right?
But literature doesn't consist of just words on a paper. Literature in the context of this college level English course is defined as written works, especially those of superior or lasting merit, that include the prominent literally elements and devices.
In my opinion, "In Had to Be Murder" is indeed literature due to the fact that the story posses a few key literary devices. Through these literary devices and tools the story is easy for the reader to follow, and even more tempting for the reader to dive into.
A few literary devices used by; Satire: The story has a slight satirical element to it. Its overall surface read portrays a man who is basically a peeping tom, but could the nuclear objective of the piece be to really bring awareness to how much we assume when watching others? Could it be a poke at the idea of peeping? What was Whoolwrich trying to tell us is the real question! Either way the story invites you to even consider the possibilities- that's literature. Situational Irony: The casual tone of the narrative leads the reader to believe that this is a mundane story about a man watching people and then suddenly you can see that Jeff was consistently poking fun at the way in which Mr. T was assumably killing his wife all while he himself was in an unfortunate space in his life as well(not able to be mobile) Description: so eloquently provided examples of writing for literature through short story. One example is the way in which woolwrich is able to deliver descriptive suspenseful sentences. Each line of description invites the reader deeper and deeper in to the story. The scene when Jeff describes pulling the dresses and packing his wife's clothes so much descriptions is provided. Even the "heaping" of Mr. T He gives notice to placement as well, while telling the story he also reminds the reader of his own presence and location in the situation.- that's good descriptive literature, I was there.
All and all the ending was a tad bit corny, but when reading this piece through a lens of literary knowledge it is clear to see that its make up is an example of literature. A writer can learn from the way in which Whoolwrich structures his story and that I feel is the craft of literature. Is it possible this piece is a nontraditional one, yes- but literature non the less.
In my opinion the movie Rear Window works great as an translation of the original work that its based off of. Most of the core aspects of the work are kept in the movie, but Hitchcock also as adds his own spin to the story and gives it a better feeling of suspense as well as an actual visual of what Hal or L.B. is seeing, and what hes doing about it. The movie is able to create the darkness of the story outside of readers heads and the use of angles and shots also helps to compliment the story. Overall the movie does a great job translating the story from the page to the screen.
Cornell's short story saw a lot of changes when adapted to Alfred Hitchcock's film version. As it is common for film to create a love story to appeal to more viewers, the film version lost the character Sam. However, this changed much of what makes Jeffrey the character he is. In the story, the relationship between Jeffrey and Sam is strange and unclear. This is just one aspect that makes Jeffrey seem more creepy in the story. In the story he was read to be slightly creepy as he seemed to be obsessed with his neighbors rather than just be curious. In the movie, his career as a photographer makes it a lot more understandable as he is used to making stories out of what he sees. In order to create a believable love story, Jeffrey had to be an interesting person with a good motive for his spying. Therefore, the scrapping of the character Sam and making him a photographer was necessary.
As I read the story along with Yasminda this story is very interesting. This movie does remind me of other movies such as Disturbia with Shia LeBeouf or even Sliver with Sharon Stone. we get a glimpse of our main character and what he is thinking and what is his next move. With the film I feel like even though it is a translation of the literature there is so much a director or a writer could do to make it an adaptation of the literature. However I'm enjoying the film as much as the story. In my view I feel like certain books need to be performed in order for people to understand what the story/ message is really about.
"It Had To Be Murder" was fairly interesting. Although it was somewhat confusing at times, I don't to discredit it by saying it was not written well. Similar to Mr. Kane, the protagonist has more to him than what's on the surface. People tend to be obsessed with watching other people. For example "reality tv" has taken over television these days. This seems to be all in his head but I'm not sure what to believe. This reminds me of an episode of Law and Order. Did he really kill her for the insurance money? Did any of this really happen? These are the questions I kept asking myself as I read this. I don't want to say that this isn't a true literary work because in my opinion, literature can be many things. Literature is generally used to inform people of things but I feel like this author made me really think while I was reading this so I'm not going to say that this isn't literature.
According to Wikipedia, "The Dutch angle, also known as the Dutch tilt, canted angle, oblique angle or German angle, is a type of camera shot where the camera is set at an angle on its roll axis so that the shot is composed with vertical lines at an angle to the side of the frame, or so that the horizon line of the shot is not parallel with the bottom of the camera frame" ( "Dutch Angle"Wikipedia ) As these shots from Slumdog Millionaire show us, this produces an effect of distortion and disorientation.
In the story, the protagonist Jeff observes his neighborhoods’ life from the window. And he found that a devoted husband, Thorwald always waits on his ill wife, but Jeff doubts why the husband can keep his wife shut up in that hot apartment and never calls a doctor. One day, Jeff found that Thorwald’s behavior is weird. Thorwald lies in the living room but never falls in asleep. His glowing cigarette is a reminder of his wakefulness. Jeff realizes that Thorwald’s ill wife is dead and Torwald is the murder. So Jeff asks his Boyne to find out the evidence, but after perfunctory check, there is no evidence to show Thorwald killed his wife. Jeff doesn’t believe it and he finds another way to prove Thorwald as a killer. The whole story doesn’t tell us texplicitly why Jeff insists that Thorhald should be the murder. Jeff thinks Thorwald is a murder, and murder it is. Readers don’t have the opportunity to share Jeff’s journey of discovering. We don’t watch with him. We’re just told the fact and conclusion by Jeff’s view. Besides, our overlook and view towards Jeff’s neighbors is manly gaining from Jeff’s thought and view. Jeff seems to dominate the view of the other characters in the story except himself. And we don’t even know what Jeff’s injury is until the last page and we never learn more than his name. It looks like Jeff is a mysterious person throughout the story and his mystery is not revealed at the end of story.
I think the short study "It had to be murder" was very suspenseful because it had you thinking what was going to happen next. Since the main character is in a wheelchair he is limited on what he can do and what he can look at. This makes him linger out the window and looking at the daily lives of his neighbors. He becomes intrigued with the lives of a married couple. Days go on and the wife later disappears and Jeff starts to wonder why. Jeff starts to think that the husband is the murderer with no facts. Is the husband really a murderer or are these just thoughts in his head.
The short story "It Had To Be Murder" was an interesting read. I think it was written well--it was very suspenseful throughout due to the mood Woolrich set and the descriptions. The protagonist was a well-written character. We get the sense that there is more to him than meets the eye, but we get enough information about him from the story and can make a few inferences from his emotional connections with some of the people he watches. Due to his apparent expertise in this area and his amazing descriptions, everything he knows we know, which lends us to trust him somewhat, even to the point where we're willing to dismiss him people-watching in the first place. I believe that the inferences he made from watching the man was logical--had I been in the same situation I might have done the same. However, I can see how this could all be in his head. People watch others and make up stories about their lives, which is what Jefferies was doing at the end of the story. He was trying to figure out why he killed his wife. I don't agree with the conclusion he made about the mistress and him killing her for the insurance money. In the beginning, he noticed that the wife had been sick for a while. I think that Lars Thornwald killed her because she had been suffering from her sickness for a long time. He had a mistress because, in situations where spouses have an incurable disease or a disease that prevents them from doing ordinary things, it's a normal circumstance. It's not excusable, but understandable in a sense.
I don't believe that this story was literature. Literature means that there is something important about the work, something that can influence people's lives or change the world in some way. Jane Austen's works gives an insight to how life was during her time and how people were during her day. Langston Hughes poems brings us to into the Harlem Renaissance and being black in America. This story is an interesting and fun read and Woolrich is definitely talented, but I would not consider it to be literature.
I think the story “It Had to be Murder” is very suspenseful
throughout it because you never know what’s going to happen next. This man was temporally
cripple and was only able to access two spots of his room. He could go from his
bed to the window and back so the only thing he could do was to stare out the
window. He began to watch this guy in another apartment by looking through his
window. I personally think he was wrong for looking through the man’s window because
the guy was in his house. Watching someone in the streets or walking around outside
I think is one thing but when there in there house I feel like your invading on
their privacy. Why should someone feel scared to walk around there house
thinking oh someone’s watching me through my windows? From him watching this
man through his window he assumes this man has committed a murder. This story
reminds me of this movie called Disturbia where this boy is on house arrest and
he can’t leave his house so he watches the guy next door through his binoculars
and witnesses a murder.
"It Had to be Murder" is a great suspense story, its almost as if the reader goes on the investigation with the main character Jeff. The author made Jeff use logical thinking in order to try to put the pieces of the murder puzzle together. Though most of it was assumptions, he grows pretty convincing throughout the story as he goes on with his "1, 2.3", scenarios. It was almost as if you were right there with him, as his suspension grew, so did yours. I felt that there was a stream of consciousness because most of what he says he is thinking about in his own head. He is alone most of the time, only visited every once in awhile by Sam and Boyne. This is a perfect movie to adapt to film because these are the classic movies that made cinema so wonderful. Who doesn't love a good crime/mystery movie?
Woolrich's story is a chilling and suspenseful tale of one mans witness of a murder committed by a man in a neighboring apartment. The story follows through Hal's first person perspective of the events and gives readers an inside look on his thoughts, actions, and drawn conclusions. The story works as a piece of literature as it features a plot, protagonist, antagonist, and a central problem that must be solved.
I think this story is perfect for a movie adaptation because it is the classic murder mystery that a film noir would be a based on. It creates drama, and suspense, and adapting it to film would heighten its darker elements with the usage of lighting, and camera angles/movements as well as giving the characters even more life through portrayal from actors.
Just sharing this video on filmmaking and cinematography because it explains a lot of things we've looked at in our ENG 345 class as well as in the book Literature into Film: Theory and Practical Approaches. The video is almost a half an hour but they cover opening credits, shot types, angles, lenses, movement, conversation, color, lighting, and other advanced techniques that are useful when making films or understanding the approach of it. Although they add in many things we did not cover in class I feel that's totally okay because it gave me more knowledge on cinematography and how to describes shots when doing a decoupage.
The above video is the original trailer for Citizen Kane, 1941. Unlike the movie trailers of today, this trailer gives much of the story away through dialogue and not visual montage in an effort to pull in the viewers. Working as writer, actor and commentator, Orson Wells invites the viewers to a personal experience through film and introduces the actors in the film. The trailer also works as a tool in presenting the debate of "Who is Charles Foster Kane?" By stating the many complex characteristics of Kane in this trailer, anyone viewing will be interested to know more about such a paradoxical man. In my own opinion, this trailer successfully sums up who Charles Foster Kane is. He is a underdeveloped man that is emotionally stuck in his adolescence due to the choices that his parents made. The overall film message exudes a psychologically meaning on the importance of upbringing. The choices and things experienced during childhood will directly show up in adult life, no matter what.
I must admit, I have been so intrigued by all that we have been learning about the evolution and master craft of film. Learning the key words then observing them produced onto a film, ignite such inspiration for writing. As a viewing participant in film/movies, especially one of the 21st century, I am more aware that it is easy to overlook all of the key cinematic elements that bring many of the movies I love together.
Now knowing the prestigious importance of Citizen Kane to film & film art, along with a more advanced film vocabulary, It was compelling to view it through a mature lens.
In the 'The Making of Citizen Kane', Carringer notes that although Orson Wells was a true maverick in regards to his vision for the film Citizen Cane, it was only with the aide of the cinematographers that allowed Wells to so maidenly push film forward in history. Carringer begins his excerpt detailing the initial way Wells and Gregg Toland began working with one another. The element of reality depicted in the excerpt is what stuck out the most. These two guys made this major film that would eventually be known as the most riveting example of film and cinematography and they were not even on traditional Hollywood schedule, the script wasn't even complete when Toland began working, and Wells underhandedly began filming without true permission from the studio. Freakin' genius!
Carringer reveals many of the behind the scene exclusives for filming Citizen Kane. Using a few of the key scenes from Citizen Kane he introduces new vocabulary for tools that work together for making a scene powerful.
" High contrast lighting is used in the nightclub background to enhance the sense of depth", writes Carringer. Many of the techniques used by Toland are what pushed Citizen Kane forward. Caringer also notes other examples of Tolands work in the 1930's. The Long Voyage Home, which was mentioned by Carringer was filmed by Toland and another key player in the film game, John Ford. Carringer notes that both Ford and Toland were known for 'breaking the rules', which landed them a nice comfy spot as cinematography historians.
Here's a clip from John Ford's The Long Voyage Home that is said to be a good example of the use of lighting and camera placement for plot progression.
I couldn't upload this video for whatever reason. But I picked this because it give a very real account of someones everyday habits and invites you into their life. The scenes change to show the different things that the person is doing, eating breakfast, getting dress, taking the dog for a walk. Something we can all relate to.
On the exam we took I'm still trying to understand the concept of emotional montage. Last night I had the leisure of watching a very old school movie Cinema Paradiso it was a movie I watch in my film class back in high school and this was a specific scene that I remember. The love montage of all love films that help the main character understand love and wanting to be with his true love. The reason why I choose this film was to show a montage in a film in a film. The Montage help brings out the emotion to show the excitement on movie goers who love romantic films that love is shown through the eyes of the viewer but it also means you
Because of our conversations on angle and point of view, I thought this was a great example from a film that we all grew up with. You see a lot of angles being used. When the Principal is above the girl you can truly feel the intensity and see her looking up scared. You also see the principal looking down on the girl and that conveys the emotion of her having a higher power from the angle we see.
Another great part about this scene is that you see close up shots of all of the school kids emotions from their facial expressions. Aside from the entertainment aspect, this short clip shows several camera techniques that I picked up on from viewing this weekend and thought I'd share!
This video is obviously stop-motion capture of real legos, and has "shots" or actually scenes that mimic both jump cutting and Montage to tell TheHobbit in a much shorter and realistic time frame adhering more to the book than the trilogy. The Youtube channel is called Brotherhood Workshop, and he and his crew actually get paid to do this awesome mode of filming.
This is movie Regeneration is my favorite World War I era film. It is a very intense and graphic film, but the ending (this clip) shows only one small bit of gruesome after-war dead. My interest is in the last 5-6 minutes where there is a jump cut that helps continue the emotional storyline to the conclusion most war films and especially WWI films share: futility and it's sad "necessary" effects on the world the act of war leaves behind. The film is also known as Behind the Lines, and is a book I haven't read.
What movie/TV show/film attracted or interested you to taking film seriously and appreciatively?
In other words what was the first movie that marveled you into wanting to know more about the film industry and how film is made?
My spark had to be when I watched the "Appendices" or the Special Extra features of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies. The depth of material, information and teamwork that went into making these landmarks in film astound and amazed me. To give you an idea of the total time of the extras in the Appendices, both the trilogies actual run time (about 20 hours) is about 10 times shorter than the extra disc which are all about the film-making process and even this is in a sense a summary.
Watching this (which took two weeks of semi-all-nighters) made me really begin to appreciate the 6-10 minutes the credit reels tend to take these days.
Also a very helpful website for movie lovers is IMDb standing for International Movie Database
The website is basically a catalog for every film that is known to exist, besides personal videos, of course.
And here is a clip inside the filming of The Hobbit which can also be found on The Hobbit Blog: http://www.thehobbitblog.com
This one is my personal favorite.
Monday, February 1, 2016
I thought that this was a good example of jump cut editing. We see the character go through a very dramatic appearance change as he cuts off his head and facial hair after each jump cut. You can really see the depressed state that this actor is carrying out through his character. The racing to the emergency room, the concerned girlfriend. It creates a nostalgic feeling of how he longs for the past and how things like this become unreal like a dream.
I thought this scene from Inception was a great example of continuity AND montage editing. The scene takes you back and forth between thoughts and dreams (montage) as well as multiple scenes in the same room (continuity) all while maintaining the same narrative. There are quite a few people who do not like this movie and considers it rather confusing but I enjoy it.
This is video I thought would be interesting ,some scenes involve face angles that go the opposite direction as we discussed in class. Plus seeing the faces given you the viewer either have a positive reaction or a negative reaction to what men are thinking.
The reason why I took this specific video online was to show for many reasons how its relateable to our class. The Youtuber "ComedyShortsGamer" in his videos obtain millions of views a day, not just for his funny videos but his persona and creative videos.If you look at his video he uses jump cuts alot to lets his viewers know that he is getting straight to the point. Even though this may not be a film montage , This video specifically highlights why due to his personality , humor and loud voice he has many viewers on You tube. To get technical with his jump cuts , his fade to dissolve videos , and his editing. is very top notch
Looking at this video shows that Montage does not just have to be a variety of clips to tell a story but describe the story in such a short amount of time but every director thinks about what story am I trying to tell. Could I be funny ? or could I be tragic? , or what kind of art am I trying to portray? When Cache mentions in class that every time she hears the word Montage she thinks of Rocky. Then watching this and seeing that Rocky 4 was 31 minutes of Montage shows how Stallone (who was the director) was trying his hardest to shorten his story to the make sure the viewer understands what is going on in a short period of time
This Montage is from the one of the breathtaking scenes in The Godfather, known as The Baptism Scene. The shooting scenes in this section, the Gothic and Catholic background music and the shootings interweave together and create the complexity and heartlessness of the protagonist himself. The paradoxical cuts builds up the tense of the movie.
I wanted to pick a movie that I thought most of the students had probably seen already. I think this movie depicts montage editing very well. In the action scenes the cuts are pieced together in such a way to keep you involved and intrigued as to what's going on with the fights on the water as well as what is going on on land. The action shots keep you thinking about multiple plots that are happening throughout the movie.
I thought that the movie Hangover was a great example of Continuity editing. This video shows continuous and seemingly uninterrupted flow of action between shots. There is also examples of eye line match when the guys are being interrogated by the cops. We can see them going back in forth. We also see the 180 degree imaginary line. We cannot see any cuts between scenes. We also see flashback technique takes us back in time reminding us where the characters was and where they ended up.
As Cache informs us, continuity has to do with the "smooth, clear passage of time with the shots occurring and it's logical, the brain can follow the story line." In other words, continuity editing refers to how the film-making team works to create a smooth narrative. Consider some of those early films, where there was no story, just a shot that included people moving around. When directors like D.W. Griffith and Sergei Eisenstein started splicing strips of film together to create a coherent story line, film was able to move towards becoming the art form we know today.
Continuity editing is that editing that combines shots in such a way that they create a coherent sense of story while also compressing time. Continuity editing refers to those instances where the editing splices together shots that occur within a common space and time frame, or that show the continuation of one given action.
So let's look at this film clip from the 1990 Truly, Madly, Deeply, an early film by the recently deceased actor, the wonderful Alan Rickman:
The primary type of editing going on in this film is "continuity editing," because the scene takes place in one room, and advances the story of the relationship between the male character (who is actually a ghost) and the female character (who just can't get him off of her mind.)
Now, our Cahir text makes us aware of a few different continuity editing tricks, including "match on action or match on movement", "match on a line" "eye-line match" "match on an object", "cross cuts", "fade" and "dissolve." These are all methods that a film editor uses to move from shot to shot, to advance the story, and yet at the same time, to use time efficiently and economically. Here are a couple lovely little film examples of a few of these techniques:
Match Cut (or "match on action"
The match cut is the opposite of a Jump Cut
(This video also includes an example of a cross cut)
Here's an "eye-line match"
Here's a very simple example of fade and dissolve
As you can see these methods allow the story to move forward coherently, while also cutting out unnecessary time.
Tomorrow, I'm going to ask all of us to consider these concepts and go back to the Chaplin video. But if you get to this blog before then, try to identify a little more specifically how "The Immigrant" gives us some examples of Continuity Editing.
In this video the publisher uses this short clip to display what continuity editing is. Throughout the clip their are also examples of Fade as well as Dissolve when the man is eating the candy and looking at his watch. Cross cut is also used a few times briefly. When the women enters into the frame it seemed the strategy Match on a line was also used.
My goal in creating this blog is to create conversations and topics that matter. So yes, in one sense this blog is very public, in that the world can view it, if they stumble on it in a Google search. Also, you and your colleagues can read and respond to each others' comments. However, it is private in that only an elite community can write and respond to it. As a member of this class, you are part of that elite community. You will be invited to join the blog after the first week of classes, and immediately after you join, you will be asked to write on the blog.
You may write on the blog in two ways:
1. You may either respond to an existing entry. This is kind of neat way to respond to a blog, in that you are actually having a conversation. If you respond to an existing entry, you should "talk" to the initial writer. Comment on what they have said, add to it, agree with it, or disagree. Be polite. Be bold.
2. You may open a new entry. Please make sure you title that entry, and label it so we know which story or film you are responding to.
Our syllabus asks you to do a total of ten blog entries, at 10 possible points each. Those assigned entries should be related to the readings/viewings we do for class. However, I urge and invite you to do additional entries, each of which will earn you up two extra credit points. I'd urge you, among other things, to write about your own film topic, or any other film related topic that you feel the class would be interested in.
Lots of folks blog on cinema. It's a great way to both share and find ideas with the larger community. Consider, for instance: The evening class, or David Bordwell's blog for his cinema class (This, by the way, is a wonderful resource.)
This blog is your forum. Enjoy it, and use it well. How you choose to use it could deeply impact the way the course evolves.
