Ngozi Onyema
Film 3000
Final Exam Part 2: Essay Section. Essay Question # 1: Film Glossary and Desperately Seeking Susan
Professor Kristine Mirrer
December 18, 2011
The five terms that I chose to explain in my own words are: Follow Shot, Focus, Pan, Eyeline Matching and Rack Focusing.
A follow shot is when the camera is following the subject while it is moving. An example of a follow shot in the film “Desperately Seeking Susan” is when the character Roberta Glass is in Manhattan and walks down the path by the benches near the water on the peer where she is hoping to catch Jim and Susan meeting. The camera follows her as she walks down the path then stops to have a seat on one of the benches.
Focus is when the camera is shooting an object that starts off dull/blurry and unclear to see and then increases the sharpness of the image, making it clearer to see. An example of focus in the film “Desperately Seeking Susan” is when Dez sees Roberta topless and getting dressed. First the focus is on the cat which Dez is trying to take but then in the distance is a blurry image of Roberta topless getting dressed. The focus on Roberta goes from blurry to sharp.
Pan is when the camera pivots from left to right or right to left filming parts of objects that are next to each other on the same vertical plane. An example of pan in the film “Desperately Seeking Susan” is in the scene at the movie theater that Dez works at when the camera pivots from focusing on the movie screen in the theater to Dez in the back controlling the film. This is Dez’s introduction to the film.
Eyeline matching is when the camera acts as the eyes of the subject and focuses on what the subject is looking at in the same position that the subject is in. It also shoots back at the subject to let the viewers of the film know that the view at the moment is the view of the subject. An example of eyeline matching in the film “Desperately Seeking Susan” is when Roberta Glass is watching Jim and Susan meet through the standing binoculars at the peer in NYC. The shot cuts back to Roberta Glass to show that when the camera is focused on Jim and Susan it is the view that Roberta Glass is seeing.
Rack focusing is when the focus is shifted from one of the two main objects in the shot to the other main object in the shot. An example of rack focusing in the film “Desperately Seeking Susan” is when Roberta is following Susan secretly down the streets of NYC. The focus goes from Susan to Roberta who is in the back trying to keep up with Susan. It’s almost as if Roberta pops in to the scene and the focus of the camera is put on her. It is done several times switching from Susan to Roberta trying to keep up behind.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Essay of Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast (1946)
Ngozi Onyema
Film 3000
December 12, 2011
Film: Beauty and the Beast. La belle et la bête (original title)
TRT: 96 minutes
Language: French with English subtitles.
Date of film: 1946
Director: Jean Cocteau
Award: 1946 Won Prix Louis Delluc. Recipient: Jean Cocteau
The topic in film theory that this film “Beauty and the Beast” relates to is the surrealist theory. Surrealist cinema is a modernist film theory launched in Paris in the 1920s. Related to an earlier tradition of Dada cinema, surrealist cinema is characterized by juxtaposition, the rejection of reality, and a frequent use of shocking imagery. Developed in the early twentieth century, surrealism is an artistic and literary style which draws upon irrational imagery and the subconscious mind. Surrealist artists approach both art and life with aims to review and redefine accepted parameters of reality. Surrealists should not, however, be mistaken as whimsical or incapable of logical thought, rather, most surrealists promote themselves as revolutionaries. Surrealism opposes compartmentalization of experiences; surrealists often synthesize life with dreams. Surrealism can be defined as an ever-shifting art form. In his film Beauty and the Beast, Jean Cocteau uses the illusion of film to create magic, while the camera itself gives validity to what appears on the screen. The combination of orchestrated effects and the immediate presence of the filmed image creates just the type of atmosphere Cocteau desires: Belief in the reality of miracles, a fairy tale dimension in which anything can happen.
In the article “A Sense of Magic: Reality and Illusion in Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast” by David Galet, David Galet talks about the surrealism in the film “Beauty and the Beast’. The simplest form of magic in the film is all trompe l’oeil: dematerialization, animation of inanimate objects, and transformation, as, for example, a magic necklace which turns in to burned rope in the hands of the wrong person. These tricks may merely grace a scene, though they usually add powerfully to the atmosphere. A second type of magic comprises the ordinary effects of the cinema: a breeze’s blowing leaves when there is no real breeze or an eerie glare from an arc lamp. A picture-book air hovers around even the house of the merchant, showing what period clothing and sedan chairs can do to enhance belief in a certain time, a certain place. The third sense of magic is a vague middle ground of cinematic effects and cinematic tricks, scenes that might be staged theatrically but would then lose most of their presence. The Beast himself is a good example of this form of magic: on stage, he would be a man in a beast suit, whereas in Cocteau’s film, he is huge, fearsome and believable. By extension, the magic functions as metaphor: man as a beast, man’s beastly nature. Many of the effects in the Beast’s castle are also semimagical, wherein the reality of the film creates belief in, for example, a human-arm candelabra. For the most part, these various effects are intermingled, though the film does exhibit a subtle progression. The article goes on to describe the esthetics of the film “Beauty and the Beast”. In the article “Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast: The Poet as Monster.” By Michael Popkin, Michael Popkin talks about how the film was put together and the roles of the characters, the beauty and the beast. Michael Popkin compares Beauty and the Beast to the King Kong film. He also compares The Beauty and the Beast film to the written story and explains the differences. He seems to prefer the written story of Beauty and the Beast to the film.
The articles especially the one titled “A Sense of Magic: Reality and Illusion in Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast.” By David Galef describes how this film “Beauty and the Beast” displays the surrealist theory. The article by David Galet talks about the magic in the film for instance when the merchant sits down to drink, a disembodied arm pours the carafe for him “close-up front of the dumbfounded Merchant as he looks, then drinks” (Script, p. 86). Just as the character on-screen is amazed, so is the audience, caught up in the close-up view. The appearance of the Beast, after the merchant has plucked a rose, is the next instance of magic. In this instance, the magic represents that intermediate area where film heightens an effect to a scene approaching the unreal. A disjointed arm moving of its own accord is magic; a swirl of leaves, where in real life there is no wind, is a weaker illusion. The Beast, in all his fearsome makeup, is close to a visual lie. An erect, talking Beast is magic, if only by the grace of film. In the article titled “Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast: The Poet as Monster by Michael Popkin, Michael Popkin mentions how director Cocteau identifies with his monster. During the filming of Beauty and the Beast Cocteau suffered painful boils “in those places where the film compels me to torment an actor with hair and spirit-gum. Even physically Corteau’s favorite theme of the poet cursed with magic powers, and who is not appreciated until those powers have been destroyed. This film exhibits many instances of surrealism.
I can appreciate the film “Beauty and the Beast” and it’s special effects for the time it was released in 1946 but comparing the special effects in the 1946 film to films of today make the “Beauty and the Beast’s” special effects pail in comparison. But I can understand that in the same way some people hold a film like Avatar by Carl Cameron in such high esteem, I can see why this version of “Beauty and the Beast” is held so high. The film was more dark than fairy tale for me, almost to the point of horror. But I like the story and the surrealism. In reading the articles reviewing this film I also like the metaphors and symbolism that is present in this film and story. I appreciate this film for adding and improving on the surrealist film genre.
Bibliography:
Galef, David. (1984). “A sense of Magic: Reality and Illusion in Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast” Literature Film Quarterly, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p96, 11p. Retrieved December 11, 2011, from Academic Search Premier
Popkin, Michael. (1982). “ Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast: The Poet as Monster.” Literature film Quarterly, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p100, 10p. Retrieved December 11, 2011, from Academic Search Premier
Film 3000
December 12, 2011
Film: Beauty and the Beast. La belle et la bête (original title)
TRT: 96 minutes
Language: French with English subtitles.
Date of film: 1946
Director: Jean Cocteau
Award: 1946 Won Prix Louis Delluc. Recipient: Jean Cocteau
The topic in film theory that this film “Beauty and the Beast” relates to is the surrealist theory. Surrealist cinema is a modernist film theory launched in Paris in the 1920s. Related to an earlier tradition of Dada cinema, surrealist cinema is characterized by juxtaposition, the rejection of reality, and a frequent use of shocking imagery. Developed in the early twentieth century, surrealism is an artistic and literary style which draws upon irrational imagery and the subconscious mind. Surrealist artists approach both art and life with aims to review and redefine accepted parameters of reality. Surrealists should not, however, be mistaken as whimsical or incapable of logical thought, rather, most surrealists promote themselves as revolutionaries. Surrealism opposes compartmentalization of experiences; surrealists often synthesize life with dreams. Surrealism can be defined as an ever-shifting art form. In his film Beauty and the Beast, Jean Cocteau uses the illusion of film to create magic, while the camera itself gives validity to what appears on the screen. The combination of orchestrated effects and the immediate presence of the filmed image creates just the type of atmosphere Cocteau desires: Belief in the reality of miracles, a fairy tale dimension in which anything can happen.
In the article “A Sense of Magic: Reality and Illusion in Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast” by David Galet, David Galet talks about the surrealism in the film “Beauty and the Beast’. The simplest form of magic in the film is all trompe l’oeil: dematerialization, animation of inanimate objects, and transformation, as, for example, a magic necklace which turns in to burned rope in the hands of the wrong person. These tricks may merely grace a scene, though they usually add powerfully to the atmosphere. A second type of magic comprises the ordinary effects of the cinema: a breeze’s blowing leaves when there is no real breeze or an eerie glare from an arc lamp. A picture-book air hovers around even the house of the merchant, showing what period clothing and sedan chairs can do to enhance belief in a certain time, a certain place. The third sense of magic is a vague middle ground of cinematic effects and cinematic tricks, scenes that might be staged theatrically but would then lose most of their presence. The Beast himself is a good example of this form of magic: on stage, he would be a man in a beast suit, whereas in Cocteau’s film, he is huge, fearsome and believable. By extension, the magic functions as metaphor: man as a beast, man’s beastly nature. Many of the effects in the Beast’s castle are also semimagical, wherein the reality of the film creates belief in, for example, a human-arm candelabra. For the most part, these various effects are intermingled, though the film does exhibit a subtle progression. The article goes on to describe the esthetics of the film “Beauty and the Beast”. In the article “Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast: The Poet as Monster.” By Michael Popkin, Michael Popkin talks about how the film was put together and the roles of the characters, the beauty and the beast. Michael Popkin compares Beauty and the Beast to the King Kong film. He also compares The Beauty and the Beast film to the written story and explains the differences. He seems to prefer the written story of Beauty and the Beast to the film.
The articles especially the one titled “A Sense of Magic: Reality and Illusion in Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast.” By David Galef describes how this film “Beauty and the Beast” displays the surrealist theory. The article by David Galet talks about the magic in the film for instance when the merchant sits down to drink, a disembodied arm pours the carafe for him “close-up front of the dumbfounded Merchant as he looks, then drinks” (Script, p. 86). Just as the character on-screen is amazed, so is the audience, caught up in the close-up view. The appearance of the Beast, after the merchant has plucked a rose, is the next instance of magic. In this instance, the magic represents that intermediate area where film heightens an effect to a scene approaching the unreal. A disjointed arm moving of its own accord is magic; a swirl of leaves, where in real life there is no wind, is a weaker illusion. The Beast, in all his fearsome makeup, is close to a visual lie. An erect, talking Beast is magic, if only by the grace of film. In the article titled “Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast: The Poet as Monster by Michael Popkin, Michael Popkin mentions how director Cocteau identifies with his monster. During the filming of Beauty and the Beast Cocteau suffered painful boils “in those places where the film compels me to torment an actor with hair and spirit-gum. Even physically Corteau’s favorite theme of the poet cursed with magic powers, and who is not appreciated until those powers have been destroyed. This film exhibits many instances of surrealism.
I can appreciate the film “Beauty and the Beast” and it’s special effects for the time it was released in 1946 but comparing the special effects in the 1946 film to films of today make the “Beauty and the Beast’s” special effects pail in comparison. But I can understand that in the same way some people hold a film like Avatar by Carl Cameron in such high esteem, I can see why this version of “Beauty and the Beast” is held so high. The film was more dark than fairy tale for me, almost to the point of horror. But I like the story and the surrealism. In reading the articles reviewing this film I also like the metaphors and symbolism that is present in this film and story. I appreciate this film for adding and improving on the surrealist film genre.
Bibliography:
Galef, David. (1984). “A sense of Magic: Reality and Illusion in Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast” Literature Film Quarterly, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p96, 11p. Retrieved December 11, 2011, from Academic Search Premier
Popkin, Michael. (1982). “ Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast: The Poet as Monster.” Literature film Quarterly, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p100, 10p. Retrieved December 11, 2011, from Academic Search Premier
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Rear Window Film Response
Ngozi Onyema
Film 3000
December 7, 2011
Film: Rear Window
TRT: 112 minutes
Language: English.
Date of film: 1954
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Award: 1955 Oscar for Best Cinematography, Color: Rober Burks. Best Director: Alfred Hitchcock. Best Sound, Recording: Loren L. Ryder (Paramount). Best Writing, Screenplay: John Michael Hayes.
The topic in film theory that this film “Rear Window” relates to is Psychoanalytical Film Theory. Psychoanalytical film theory is a school of academic film criticism that developed in the 1970s and ‘80s, is closely allied with critical theory, and that analyzes films from the perspective of psychoanalysis, generally the works of Jacques Lacar. The film viewer is seen as the subject of a “gaze” that is largely “constructed” by the film itself, where what is on screen becomes the object of that subject’s desire. The viewing subject may be offered particular identifications (usually with a leading male character) from which to watch. The theory stresses the subject’s longing for a completeness which the film may appear to offer through identification with an image; in fact according to Lacanian theory, identification with the image is never anything but an illusion and the subject is always split simply by virtue of coming in to existence. In this film the character L.B. Jeffries played by James Stewart is the subject of psychoanalysis. L.B. Jeffries has suspicions and the audience has to wonder if his suspicions are valid or if it’s all in his head.
The article titled “Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window as Critical Allegory” by George E. Toles breaks down the film “Rear Window” in a way many different critics may see the film. It captures the film from many different angles but is mainly focused on the question of if it was ethical for the main character L.B. Jeffries to jump to the conclusion he did so quickly about the murder. It brings to question the psychoanalytical aspect of the main character in the film. This article goes in to questioning how the audience should view the film during the changes that occur with identifying with the main character. This article is more of a defense against Hitchcock’s critics. In the article titled “Rear Window (1954)” by Roger Ebert, Roger Ebert explains the film “Rear Window”. The article goes in to the audience’s identification with the main character L.B. Jeffries played by James Stewart. The article goes in to the background of the actor who played the main character: James Stewart. The article also goes in to details about how the film was put together by Hitchcock.
The article especially the one titled “Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window as Critical Allegory” by George E. Toles delves deeply in to details that make the “Rear Window” film characteristic of Psychoanalytical Film Theory. The fact that the film expresses the complex that the main character and his neighbors live in as seemingly normal and while a murder is suspected to have occurred has the audience critical which is part of the psychoanalytical film theory. The article by George E. Toles goes on to say: “Rear Window whose protagonist, in addition to being a voyeur and a prototype of the movie-goer, is also a critic of sorts. Returning to the question with which this paper began, the ethical question of the precise nature of Jeffries’s transgression, one might reasonably argue that as a critic Jeffries is guilty, at the very least of arriving at judgment without understanding. At no point does he feel the pressure to arrive at a more difficult self-knowledge’. The article also says: “Rear Window shows us how tempting it is for us not to change subject or terms once they have been established, at the risk of confusion or exposing our own slippery, irresolute ground….One must be willing to reexamine the suspect ways in which the self constantly exchanges its confusions for fantasies of settled order and out of this order contrives a limited world to inhabit.” All of these statements are points to how this film is characteristic of psychoanalytical film theory.
Personally I enjoyed this film especially Jimmy Stewarts acting. He’s a fine actor. I learned through the film and critics writings of the film how films draw the audience in to be identified with the main character. This film displayed that well especially since most of what the main character was doing was spectating and watching others just as we the viewers of the film watched the characters in the film. We formed a bond with the main character but the film involved critical thinking and when the main character came out with his suspicions we applied the psychoanalytical film theory.
Bibliography:
Ebert, Roger (1983, October 7). Rear Window. Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved December 7, 2011 from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19831007/REVIEWS/310070302/1023
Toles, George E. (Winter – Spring, 1989). “Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window as Critical Allegory” boundary 2, Vol. 16. No. 2/3 pp. 225-245. Retrieved December 7, 2011, from JSTOR
Film 3000
December 7, 2011
Film: Rear Window
TRT: 112 minutes
Language: English.
Date of film: 1954
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Award: 1955 Oscar for Best Cinematography, Color: Rober Burks. Best Director: Alfred Hitchcock. Best Sound, Recording: Loren L. Ryder (Paramount). Best Writing, Screenplay: John Michael Hayes.
The topic in film theory that this film “Rear Window” relates to is Psychoanalytical Film Theory. Psychoanalytical film theory is a school of academic film criticism that developed in the 1970s and ‘80s, is closely allied with critical theory, and that analyzes films from the perspective of psychoanalysis, generally the works of Jacques Lacar. The film viewer is seen as the subject of a “gaze” that is largely “constructed” by the film itself, where what is on screen becomes the object of that subject’s desire. The viewing subject may be offered particular identifications (usually with a leading male character) from which to watch. The theory stresses the subject’s longing for a completeness which the film may appear to offer through identification with an image; in fact according to Lacanian theory, identification with the image is never anything but an illusion and the subject is always split simply by virtue of coming in to existence. In this film the character L.B. Jeffries played by James Stewart is the subject of psychoanalysis. L.B. Jeffries has suspicions and the audience has to wonder if his suspicions are valid or if it’s all in his head.
The article titled “Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window as Critical Allegory” by George E. Toles breaks down the film “Rear Window” in a way many different critics may see the film. It captures the film from many different angles but is mainly focused on the question of if it was ethical for the main character L.B. Jeffries to jump to the conclusion he did so quickly about the murder. It brings to question the psychoanalytical aspect of the main character in the film. This article goes in to questioning how the audience should view the film during the changes that occur with identifying with the main character. This article is more of a defense against Hitchcock’s critics. In the article titled “Rear Window (1954)” by Roger Ebert, Roger Ebert explains the film “Rear Window”. The article goes in to the audience’s identification with the main character L.B. Jeffries played by James Stewart. The article goes in to the background of the actor who played the main character: James Stewart. The article also goes in to details about how the film was put together by Hitchcock.
The article especially the one titled “Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window as Critical Allegory” by George E. Toles delves deeply in to details that make the “Rear Window” film characteristic of Psychoanalytical Film Theory. The fact that the film expresses the complex that the main character and his neighbors live in as seemingly normal and while a murder is suspected to have occurred has the audience critical which is part of the psychoanalytical film theory. The article by George E. Toles goes on to say: “Rear Window whose protagonist, in addition to being a voyeur and a prototype of the movie-goer, is also a critic of sorts. Returning to the question with which this paper began, the ethical question of the precise nature of Jeffries’s transgression, one might reasonably argue that as a critic Jeffries is guilty, at the very least of arriving at judgment without understanding. At no point does he feel the pressure to arrive at a more difficult self-knowledge’. The article also says: “Rear Window shows us how tempting it is for us not to change subject or terms once they have been established, at the risk of confusion or exposing our own slippery, irresolute ground….One must be willing to reexamine the suspect ways in which the self constantly exchanges its confusions for fantasies of settled order and out of this order contrives a limited world to inhabit.” All of these statements are points to how this film is characteristic of psychoanalytical film theory.
Personally I enjoyed this film especially Jimmy Stewarts acting. He’s a fine actor. I learned through the film and critics writings of the film how films draw the audience in to be identified with the main character. This film displayed that well especially since most of what the main character was doing was spectating and watching others just as we the viewers of the film watched the characters in the film. We formed a bond with the main character but the film involved critical thinking and when the main character came out with his suspicions we applied the psychoanalytical film theory.
Bibliography:
Ebert, Roger (1983, October 7). Rear Window. Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved December 7, 2011 from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19831007/REVIEWS/310070302/1023
Toles, George E. (Winter – Spring, 1989). “Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window as Critical Allegory” boundary 2, Vol. 16. No. 2/3 pp. 225-245. Retrieved December 7, 2011, from JSTOR
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Roman Polanski's Chinatown Essay
Ngozi Onyema
Film 3000
November 29, 2011
Film: Chinatown
TRT: 130 minutes
Language: English.
Date of film: 1974
Director: Roman Polanski
Award: 1975 Oscar: Best Writing, Original Screenplay Robert Towne,
BAFTA Film Award
Best Actor:
Jack Nicholson
Best Direction
Roman Polanski
Best Screenplay
Robert Towne
Golden Globe:
Best Director - Motion Picture
Roman Polanski
Best Motion Picture - Drama
Best Motion Picture Actor - Drama
Jack Nicholson
Best Screenplay - Motion Picture
Robert Towne
The topic in film theory that this film “Chinatown”, relates to is Film Noir. Film Noir which in French means black film is a motion picture with an often grim urban setting, photographed in somber tones and permeated by a feeling of disillusioned, pessimism and despair. JJ “Jake” Gittes played by Jack Nicholson is a private detective with a cynical attitude which is part of what makes this film noir. JJ “Jake” Gittes specializes in matrimonial cases. More examples that this film is film noir is that Chinatown has a sinister preoccupation with it’s relentless close-ups that seems at times almost monomaniacal, always ominously subjective, with Jack Nicholson’s inquisiting profile repeatedly framing the picture to the left or right of the screen. The over-wrought, meticulously compositional style of cinematographer John Alonzo comes to look like a series of deceptive “frame-ups” with evil inhering in the smallest details of scenes – and violence lurking just beyond the peripheral vision we so often share with the hero. The macabre conclusion, despite plot loopholes, is tonally dead right; in retrospect, the movie’s lush serenity is meant to feel obscene.
The article by Garrett Stewart titled “’The Long Goodbye’ from ‘Chinatown’” compares Roman Polanski’s film “Chinatown” with Robert Altman’s “The Long Goodbye”. The article says that in watching “Chinatown” one can feel “The Long Goodbye” lurking behind it with the latent force of a foregone conclusion. Altman and his screenwriter took a 1953 Raymond Chandler novel, with its famous Philip Marlowe hero, and updated it twenty years in to the glare and barbarity of the contemporary L.A. waste-land, while Robert Towne’s script for Polanski casts its variant detective figure, J.J. Gittes, three decades back in to the complacent luxury of prewar L.A., a leisurely decadent culture primed for destruction. The article expresses the film noir characteristics of Chinatown. The article speaks of how both the film’s main characters are alike in the same ways and cynical. The article titled “Chinatown” by Roger Ebert praises Roman Polanski’s “Chinatown” film saying how it works by following the film noir genre tradition perfectly. This article like the other also does a comparison of “Chinatown” and “The Long Goodbye”. Roger Ebert mentions the main character, J.J Gittes, deeply cynical feelings about human nature and the personal code that J.J Gittes sticks to which is characteristic of film noir.
The articles, especially the one titled “’The Long Goodbye’ from ‘Chinatown’” delve deeply in to the details that make the “Chinatown” film characteristic of Film Noir. Everything from the depicted L.A. wasteland to the relentless monomaniacal close-ups to the many scenes with violence lurking just beyond the peripheral vision to the cynicism in Jack Nicholson’s character depicts this film “Chinatown” as film noir. Roger Ebert attests to this and says that Polanski is so sensitive to the ways in which 1930s movies in this genre were made that were almost watching a critical essay. The articles acknowledge all the points in this film that would rightly characterize it as film noir.
Personally I enjoyed the film especially Jack Nicholson’s acting performance. Through the seriousness and drama of the film Jack Nicholson was able to bring some humor as he usually does and he did this without effecting the theme of the film which is film noir. Garret Stewart who wrote the article titled “’The Long Goodbye’ from ‘Chinatown’” did a great job in summarizing and explaining how this film fits in to film noir. I kind of relate to these types of films because I am cynical about some things. “Chinatown” is actually neo noir being that it was done in a time period after the 1940’s. I think some of the films I watch are neo noir but until now I never considered the name. I am happy to have learned this. It makes it easier now to find these type of films now that they are classified as neo noir.
Bibliography:
Ebert, Roger (1974, June 1). Chinatown. Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved November 29, 2011 from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19740601/REVIEWS/40817002/1023
Stewart, Garrett (Winter 1974 – 1975). “’The Long Goodbye’ from ‘Chinatown’”. Film Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2 pp. 25 – 32. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from JSTOR
Film 3000
November 29, 2011
Film: Chinatown
TRT: 130 minutes
Language: English.
Date of film: 1974
Director: Roman Polanski
Award: 1975 Oscar: Best Writing, Original Screenplay Robert Towne,
BAFTA Film Award
Best Actor:
Jack Nicholson
Best Direction
Roman Polanski
Best Screenplay
Robert Towne
Golden Globe:
Best Director - Motion Picture
Roman Polanski
Best Motion Picture - Drama
Best Motion Picture Actor - Drama
Jack Nicholson
Best Screenplay - Motion Picture
Robert Towne
The topic in film theory that this film “Chinatown”, relates to is Film Noir. Film Noir which in French means black film is a motion picture with an often grim urban setting, photographed in somber tones and permeated by a feeling of disillusioned, pessimism and despair. JJ “Jake” Gittes played by Jack Nicholson is a private detective with a cynical attitude which is part of what makes this film noir. JJ “Jake” Gittes specializes in matrimonial cases. More examples that this film is film noir is that Chinatown has a sinister preoccupation with it’s relentless close-ups that seems at times almost monomaniacal, always ominously subjective, with Jack Nicholson’s inquisiting profile repeatedly framing the picture to the left or right of the screen. The over-wrought, meticulously compositional style of cinematographer John Alonzo comes to look like a series of deceptive “frame-ups” with evil inhering in the smallest details of scenes – and violence lurking just beyond the peripheral vision we so often share with the hero. The macabre conclusion, despite plot loopholes, is tonally dead right; in retrospect, the movie’s lush serenity is meant to feel obscene.
The article by Garrett Stewart titled “’The Long Goodbye’ from ‘Chinatown’” compares Roman Polanski’s film “Chinatown” with Robert Altman’s “The Long Goodbye”. The article says that in watching “Chinatown” one can feel “The Long Goodbye” lurking behind it with the latent force of a foregone conclusion. Altman and his screenwriter took a 1953 Raymond Chandler novel, with its famous Philip Marlowe hero, and updated it twenty years in to the glare and barbarity of the contemporary L.A. waste-land, while Robert Towne’s script for Polanski casts its variant detective figure, J.J. Gittes, three decades back in to the complacent luxury of prewar L.A., a leisurely decadent culture primed for destruction. The article expresses the film noir characteristics of Chinatown. The article speaks of how both the film’s main characters are alike in the same ways and cynical. The article titled “Chinatown” by Roger Ebert praises Roman Polanski’s “Chinatown” film saying how it works by following the film noir genre tradition perfectly. This article like the other also does a comparison of “Chinatown” and “The Long Goodbye”. Roger Ebert mentions the main character, J.J Gittes, deeply cynical feelings about human nature and the personal code that J.J Gittes sticks to which is characteristic of film noir.
The articles, especially the one titled “’The Long Goodbye’ from ‘Chinatown’” delve deeply in to the details that make the “Chinatown” film characteristic of Film Noir. Everything from the depicted L.A. wasteland to the relentless monomaniacal close-ups to the many scenes with violence lurking just beyond the peripheral vision to the cynicism in Jack Nicholson’s character depicts this film “Chinatown” as film noir. Roger Ebert attests to this and says that Polanski is so sensitive to the ways in which 1930s movies in this genre were made that were almost watching a critical essay. The articles acknowledge all the points in this film that would rightly characterize it as film noir.
Personally I enjoyed the film especially Jack Nicholson’s acting performance. Through the seriousness and drama of the film Jack Nicholson was able to bring some humor as he usually does and he did this without effecting the theme of the film which is film noir. Garret Stewart who wrote the article titled “’The Long Goodbye’ from ‘Chinatown’” did a great job in summarizing and explaining how this film fits in to film noir. I kind of relate to these types of films because I am cynical about some things. “Chinatown” is actually neo noir being that it was done in a time period after the 1940’s. I think some of the films I watch are neo noir but until now I never considered the name. I am happy to have learned this. It makes it easier now to find these type of films now that they are classified as neo noir.
Bibliography:
Ebert, Roger (1974, June 1). Chinatown. Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved November 29, 2011 from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19740601/REVIEWS/40817002/1023
Stewart, Garrett (Winter 1974 – 1975). “’The Long Goodbye’ from ‘Chinatown’”. Film Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2 pp. 25 – 32. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from JSTOR
Monday, October 31, 2011
The Searchers by John Ford Essay
Ngozi Onyema
Film 3000
November 01, 2011
Film: The Searchers
TRT: 119 minutes
Language: English.
Date of film: 1956
Director: John Ford
Award: Named “The Greatest American Western of All Time” by the American Film Institute in 2008.
The topic in film theory that this film “The Searchers” relates to is the auteur theory. Auterism is the notion that the director is the singular genius of the motion-picture medium. This theory has more to do with the audience/critics than it does the film but it does involve the audience/critics perception and critique of the film specifically the director. This was brought up in a time when some people felt that some films and their directors were wrongfully underappreciated and also felt that some of these directors should be looked at with high esteem and honor as authors which is the English pronunciation/version/meaning of the French word auteurs. John Ford was seen as one of these highly esteemed directors in the world of auteurs.
The article titled “John Ford’s The Searchers” by Stefan Herrmann starts off pointing out the racism expressed in this film. Douglas Pye says that The Searchers film does not offer “a coherent set of perspectives” which as the author of this article points out is based on a wider view on the time the film was made. The article goes on to tell different views of the film by critics. One critic in particular who is well known to hold John Ford as an auteur is Andrew Sarris. Andrew Sarris called the film in his 1971 essay on The Searchers “resolutely untraditional”, naming it Ford’s “greatest symphony”. Sarris examined the film under stylistic terms and did not focus on the ideological means of it like other critics did. In the second article titled “Gunning for John Ford at the Auteur Corral” by Thomas Doherty, the article offers a defense of John Ford against his critics and basically champions the idea of John Ford as an auteur. It speaks about the two most passionate partisans in this battle of criticizing auteurism: Andrew Sarris in the auteurist corner at a small journal called Film Culture and Pauline Kael then operating a pair of movie-revival theaters in the Berkeley are and soon to be the New Yorkers resident cinephile. Taking his cue from the French crowd at Cahiers, Sarris sought to “convert film history into directorial autobiography”. More audaciously, he celebrated Hollywood workhorses like Ford, Howard Hawks, and Alfred Hitchcock as capital A artists, fit to be ranked with all the great visionaries of the century. The auteur critics were infact a very convincing group.
These articles not only describe the film but the nature of the critique of the film. Some critics were surprised that Ford went back to doing Westerns but as this article points out, the time he did it gives us a sense of what the nature of critiquing was like. These articles relate to the screening and point out where we were at that point in time as a society while at the same time acknowledging art, style and pointing out underappreciated greatness.
My personal opinion as a result of all of this is that everyone is a critic. Even taking it from the film itself, there’s criticism within the characters in the film. This is sort of like art imitating life or life imitating art. People see things in different ways as all the critics of this film do. More than anything this film and its responses is a testament to how we all see things.
Bibliography:
Doherty, Thomas (2000, June 9). Gunning for John Ford at the Auteur Corral. Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 46 Issue 40, pB9, 2p. Retrieved November 01, 2011, from Academic Search Premier Database
Herrmann, Stefan (2001, April 9). John Ford’s ‘The Searchers’. Steffanherrmann.com. Retrieved November 01, 2011 from http://stefanherrmann.com/text/essays/archive/searchers.html
Film 3000
November 01, 2011
Film: The Searchers
TRT: 119 minutes
Language: English.
Date of film: 1956
Director: John Ford
Award: Named “The Greatest American Western of All Time” by the American Film Institute in 2008.
The topic in film theory that this film “The Searchers” relates to is the auteur theory. Auterism is the notion that the director is the singular genius of the motion-picture medium. This theory has more to do with the audience/critics than it does the film but it does involve the audience/critics perception and critique of the film specifically the director. This was brought up in a time when some people felt that some films and their directors were wrongfully underappreciated and also felt that some of these directors should be looked at with high esteem and honor as authors which is the English pronunciation/version/meaning of the French word auteurs. John Ford was seen as one of these highly esteemed directors in the world of auteurs.
The article titled “John Ford’s The Searchers” by Stefan Herrmann starts off pointing out the racism expressed in this film. Douglas Pye says that The Searchers film does not offer “a coherent set of perspectives” which as the author of this article points out is based on a wider view on the time the film was made. The article goes on to tell different views of the film by critics. One critic in particular who is well known to hold John Ford as an auteur is Andrew Sarris. Andrew Sarris called the film in his 1971 essay on The Searchers “resolutely untraditional”, naming it Ford’s “greatest symphony”. Sarris examined the film under stylistic terms and did not focus on the ideological means of it like other critics did. In the second article titled “Gunning for John Ford at the Auteur Corral” by Thomas Doherty, the article offers a defense of John Ford against his critics and basically champions the idea of John Ford as an auteur. It speaks about the two most passionate partisans in this battle of criticizing auteurism: Andrew Sarris in the auteurist corner at a small journal called Film Culture and Pauline Kael then operating a pair of movie-revival theaters in the Berkeley are and soon to be the New Yorkers resident cinephile. Taking his cue from the French crowd at Cahiers, Sarris sought to “convert film history into directorial autobiography”. More audaciously, he celebrated Hollywood workhorses like Ford, Howard Hawks, and Alfred Hitchcock as capital A artists, fit to be ranked with all the great visionaries of the century. The auteur critics were infact a very convincing group.
These articles not only describe the film but the nature of the critique of the film. Some critics were surprised that Ford went back to doing Westerns but as this article points out, the time he did it gives us a sense of what the nature of critiquing was like. These articles relate to the screening and point out where we were at that point in time as a society while at the same time acknowledging art, style and pointing out underappreciated greatness.
My personal opinion as a result of all of this is that everyone is a critic. Even taking it from the film itself, there’s criticism within the characters in the film. This is sort of like art imitating life or life imitating art. People see things in different ways as all the critics of this film do. More than anything this film and its responses is a testament to how we all see things.
Bibliography:
Doherty, Thomas (2000, June 9). Gunning for John Ford at the Auteur Corral. Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 46 Issue 40, pB9, 2p. Retrieved November 01, 2011, from Academic Search Premier Database
Herrmann, Stefan (2001, April 9). John Ford’s ‘The Searchers’. Steffanherrmann.com. Retrieved November 01, 2011 from http://stefanherrmann.com/text/essays/archive/searchers.html
Monday, October 17, 2011
Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon Film Essay
Ngozi Onyema
Film 3000
October 18, 2011
Film: Rashomon
TRT: 87 minutes
Language: Japanese with English Subtitles
Date of the Film: 1950
Director: Akira Kurosawa
Awards:
• Blue Ribbon Awards (1951) - Best Screenplay: Akira Kurosawa and Shinobu Hashimoto
• Mainichi Film Concours (1951) - Best Actress: Machiko Kyō
• Venice Film Festival (1951) - Golden Lion: Akira Kurosawa
• National Board of Review USA (1951) - Best Director: Akira Kurosawa and Best Foreign Film: Japan
• 24th Academy Awards, USA (1952) - Best Foreign Language Film
The topic in Film Theory that I feel is involved with this film Roshomon is Epistemology. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge. It basically asks the question “how do we know what we know is the truth?” In this film there are four different interpretations of the same event. This has the audience question what is the truth and if there is such a thing as a single truth. Another topic I see in this film is allegory as I see the symbolism of this film compared to the defeat of Japan at the end of World War II.
In the first article by Paul Tatara, Paul gives a summary of the film, the effects the film Rashomon had on the film industry, critics of Kurosawa and most notably Kurosawa’s recounting of his explanation of the script in his memoir “Something Like an Autobiography”. In his memoir Kurosawa said “Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves. They cannot talk about themselves without embellishing. The script portrays such human beings the kind who cannot survive without lies to make them feel better than they really are. It even shows this sinful need for flattery falsehood going beyond the grave – even the character who dies cannot give up his lies when he speaks to the living through the median. Egoism is a sin the human being carries with him from birth; it is the most difficult to redeem. This film is a strange picture scroll that is unrolled and discharged by the ego.” In the second article by Roger Ebert he pretty much does the same thing summarizing the film but he also gives a psychological and more analytical view of the film. He gives an explanation of the film that involves both Kurosawa’s explanation of the film and the expected interpretation of the audience to the film. In the third article by Hideo Hama titled “Ethnomethodology and the Rashomon Problem” Hideo Hama speaks about Harold Garfinkel’s dissertation which critically examined Talcott Parsons’ classical formulation of the problem of order referred to as the “Hobbesian problem”. Garfinkel’s examination spoke of how congruency theory replaces the correspondence theory. Hideo Hama proposed to examine the “Hobbesian problem” but instead use the name “Rashomon problem”. Hideo Hama’s article basically examines the film Rashomon to try to figure out what truly happened.
These articles relate to the screening in a sense that they acknowledge the true explanation of the film which is given by Kurosawa himself and they acknowledge the interpreted explanation of the film which is by the audience because of the inconclusive ending of the different stories in the film. Roger Ebert says “The genius of “Rashomon” is that all of the flashbacks are both true and false. True in that they present an accurate portrait of what each witness thinks happened. False, because as Kurosawa observes in his autobiography, “Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves about themselves. They cannot talk aobut themselves without embellishing.” This goes back to the epistemology about how do we know what we know is the truth. We are given different accounts of the story and are left wondering what the truth is.
As far as the film I couldn’t help but feel that it was a little over the top as far as the acting part of it. That may be due to me not being used to Japanese films. I was also kind of disappointed to find out that Kurosawa gave an explanation of the film by saying all the stories were a lie. I was under the impression that this was a film about different interpretations, about seeing things differently from others. When you say that the different accounts are lies then it is no longer an interpretation but lie. At the same time all of the accounts can’t be a lie unless a truth is known. Kurosawa doesn’t go on to tell us what the truth is but he does tell us all accounts are lies so we are still left wondering what the truth is.
Bibliography:
Ebert, Roger (2002, May 26). Rashomon (1950). Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved October 18, 2011 from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020526/REVIEWS08/205260301/1023
Tatara, Paul (2011). Rashomon. Turner Classic Movies Film Article. Retrieved October 18, 2011 from http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/136021|0/Rashomon.html
Hama, Hideo (1999, October). Ethnomethodology and the Rashomon Problem. Human Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2/4, pg 183 – 192. Retrieved December 18, 2011, from JSTOR
Film 3000
October 18, 2011
Film: Rashomon
TRT: 87 minutes
Language: Japanese with English Subtitles
Date of the Film: 1950
Director: Akira Kurosawa
Awards:
• Blue Ribbon Awards (1951) - Best Screenplay: Akira Kurosawa and Shinobu Hashimoto
• Mainichi Film Concours (1951) - Best Actress: Machiko Kyō
• Venice Film Festival (1951) - Golden Lion: Akira Kurosawa
• National Board of Review USA (1951) - Best Director: Akira Kurosawa and Best Foreign Film: Japan
• 24th Academy Awards, USA (1952) - Best Foreign Language Film
The topic in Film Theory that I feel is involved with this film Roshomon is Epistemology. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge. It basically asks the question “how do we know what we know is the truth?” In this film there are four different interpretations of the same event. This has the audience question what is the truth and if there is such a thing as a single truth. Another topic I see in this film is allegory as I see the symbolism of this film compared to the defeat of Japan at the end of World War II.
In the first article by Paul Tatara, Paul gives a summary of the film, the effects the film Rashomon had on the film industry, critics of Kurosawa and most notably Kurosawa’s recounting of his explanation of the script in his memoir “Something Like an Autobiography”. In his memoir Kurosawa said “Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves. They cannot talk about themselves without embellishing. The script portrays such human beings the kind who cannot survive without lies to make them feel better than they really are. It even shows this sinful need for flattery falsehood going beyond the grave – even the character who dies cannot give up his lies when he speaks to the living through the median. Egoism is a sin the human being carries with him from birth; it is the most difficult to redeem. This film is a strange picture scroll that is unrolled and discharged by the ego.” In the second article by Roger Ebert he pretty much does the same thing summarizing the film but he also gives a psychological and more analytical view of the film. He gives an explanation of the film that involves both Kurosawa’s explanation of the film and the expected interpretation of the audience to the film. In the third article by Hideo Hama titled “Ethnomethodology and the Rashomon Problem” Hideo Hama speaks about Harold Garfinkel’s dissertation which critically examined Talcott Parsons’ classical formulation of the problem of order referred to as the “Hobbesian problem”. Garfinkel’s examination spoke of how congruency theory replaces the correspondence theory. Hideo Hama proposed to examine the “Hobbesian problem” but instead use the name “Rashomon problem”. Hideo Hama’s article basically examines the film Rashomon to try to figure out what truly happened.
These articles relate to the screening in a sense that they acknowledge the true explanation of the film which is given by Kurosawa himself and they acknowledge the interpreted explanation of the film which is by the audience because of the inconclusive ending of the different stories in the film. Roger Ebert says “The genius of “Rashomon” is that all of the flashbacks are both true and false. True in that they present an accurate portrait of what each witness thinks happened. False, because as Kurosawa observes in his autobiography, “Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves about themselves. They cannot talk aobut themselves without embellishing.” This goes back to the epistemology about how do we know what we know is the truth. We are given different accounts of the story and are left wondering what the truth is.
As far as the film I couldn’t help but feel that it was a little over the top as far as the acting part of it. That may be due to me not being used to Japanese films. I was also kind of disappointed to find out that Kurosawa gave an explanation of the film by saying all the stories were a lie. I was under the impression that this was a film about different interpretations, about seeing things differently from others. When you say that the different accounts are lies then it is no longer an interpretation but lie. At the same time all of the accounts can’t be a lie unless a truth is known. Kurosawa doesn’t go on to tell us what the truth is but he does tell us all accounts are lies so we are still left wondering what the truth is.
Bibliography:
Ebert, Roger (2002, May 26). Rashomon (1950). Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved October 18, 2011 from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020526/REVIEWS08/205260301/1023
Tatara, Paul (2011). Rashomon. Turner Classic Movies Film Article. Retrieved October 18, 2011 from http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/136021|0/Rashomon.html
Hama, Hideo (1999, October). Ethnomethodology and the Rashomon Problem. Human Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2/4, pg 183 – 192. Retrieved December 18, 2011, from JSTOR
Monday, October 10, 2011
Truffaut's 400 Blows Essay
Ngozi Onyema
Film 3000
October 10, 2011
Film: The 400 Blows
TRT: 99 minutes
Language: French with English subtitles.
Date of film: 1959
Director: Francois Truffaut
Award: The Grand Prize at the 1959 Cannes Film Festival
The topic in Film Theory that is involved with this film is the French New Wave. Film makers of the French New Wave were highly critical of the glossy, formulaic and studio-bound French cinema of the 1940s and 1950s, but praised the work of the 1930s French film makers Jean Renoir and Jean Vigo and the work of the Italian neo-realists, including Roberto Rossellini and Vittorio De Sica. The goal of the French New Wave was to have cinema become as worthy of academic study as any other art form. Existentialism was also a major influence on the French New Wave. French New Wave incorporated working on location as opposed to in the studio. Light weight hand held cameras were used. Available light was preferred to studio-style lighting and available sound was preferred to extensive studio dubbing. Following characters down streets, cafes and shops were done in the French New Wave just as was in this film 400 Blows. Also long takes like when Antoine was running from the detention center was also a characteristic of French New Wave. The French New Wave also examined relationships and told humane stories.
In the article review of the film 400 Blows by Arlene Croce, Arlene compares the 400 Blows film to American cinema and points out the differences. She basically talks about how the 400 Blows film remains natural and authentic in its image of revolt. She feels that this is something lacking in American film and something that is needed. She goes on to point out many of the French New Wave characteristics Truffaut used in this film. In Roger Ebert’s review of the film 400 Blows he expresses his enjoyment of the film but does not go in to detail about the style of the film as Arlene Croce does. Roger Ebert’s article review delves more in to the life of Francois Truffaut.
The article by Arlene Croce expressed how Truffaut used the French New Wave in the film 400 Blows. Arlene says: “The most original feature of Truffaut’s beautifully oblique style of commentary is his by-now famous use of protracted sequences accomplished through the sustained single shot and through a minimum of cutting: the scene in the revolving drum, the long ride in the paddy wagon which encompasses the boys whole descent from innocence, and which I recall as one long close-up alternated with a single reverse-field shot; the extraordinary interview with the (off-screen) psychiatrist, in which there are no cuts, merely a series of unsettling dissolves; and the long tracking shot of the stupendous finale.” Ambiguity, another characteristic of the French New Wave is mentioned in Arlene Croce’s article as described in the film 400 Blows. Roger Ebert’s article review sort of sticks to reviewing the film based on genre and not on style detail. Ebert goes on to say: “Truffaut’s film is not a dirge or entirely a tragedy. There are moments of fun and joy.” Ebert mentions the part of the film when the family went to the movies and had laughs after. Those are the distinctions between the two articles and how they relate to the screening.
Personally I’ve learned allot about French Films specifically the French New Wave and I fell that this film 400 Blows is a great representation of the French New Wave. Although I am not a film maker or major I like the fact that the French are basically being creative in their film making. They are standing out from the norm in American cinema. There is a lot of detail in film that sometimes goes unnoticed. I am glad that I was able to experience those details by watching this fim, reading about French New Wave and doing this assignment.
Bibliography:
Ebert, Roger (1999, August 8). The 400 Blows (1959). Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990808/REVIEWS08/908080301/1023
Croce, Arlene (1960, Spring). Review: Les Quatre Cents Coups. Film Quarterly, Vol. 13. No. 3. pp. 35 – 38. Retrieved October 10, 2011, from JSTOR Database also http://www.jstor.org/stable/1210434
Film 3000
October 10, 2011
Film: The 400 Blows
TRT: 99 minutes
Language: French with English subtitles.
Date of film: 1959
Director: Francois Truffaut
Award: The Grand Prize at the 1959 Cannes Film Festival
The topic in Film Theory that is involved with this film is the French New Wave. Film makers of the French New Wave were highly critical of the glossy, formulaic and studio-bound French cinema of the 1940s and 1950s, but praised the work of the 1930s French film makers Jean Renoir and Jean Vigo and the work of the Italian neo-realists, including Roberto Rossellini and Vittorio De Sica. The goal of the French New Wave was to have cinema become as worthy of academic study as any other art form. Existentialism was also a major influence on the French New Wave. French New Wave incorporated working on location as opposed to in the studio. Light weight hand held cameras were used. Available light was preferred to studio-style lighting and available sound was preferred to extensive studio dubbing. Following characters down streets, cafes and shops were done in the French New Wave just as was in this film 400 Blows. Also long takes like when Antoine was running from the detention center was also a characteristic of French New Wave. The French New Wave also examined relationships and told humane stories.
In the article review of the film 400 Blows by Arlene Croce, Arlene compares the 400 Blows film to American cinema and points out the differences. She basically talks about how the 400 Blows film remains natural and authentic in its image of revolt. She feels that this is something lacking in American film and something that is needed. She goes on to point out many of the French New Wave characteristics Truffaut used in this film. In Roger Ebert’s review of the film 400 Blows he expresses his enjoyment of the film but does not go in to detail about the style of the film as Arlene Croce does. Roger Ebert’s article review delves more in to the life of Francois Truffaut.
The article by Arlene Croce expressed how Truffaut used the French New Wave in the film 400 Blows. Arlene says: “The most original feature of Truffaut’s beautifully oblique style of commentary is his by-now famous use of protracted sequences accomplished through the sustained single shot and through a minimum of cutting: the scene in the revolving drum, the long ride in the paddy wagon which encompasses the boys whole descent from innocence, and which I recall as one long close-up alternated with a single reverse-field shot; the extraordinary interview with the (off-screen) psychiatrist, in which there are no cuts, merely a series of unsettling dissolves; and the long tracking shot of the stupendous finale.” Ambiguity, another characteristic of the French New Wave is mentioned in Arlene Croce’s article as described in the film 400 Blows. Roger Ebert’s article review sort of sticks to reviewing the film based on genre and not on style detail. Ebert goes on to say: “Truffaut’s film is not a dirge or entirely a tragedy. There are moments of fun and joy.” Ebert mentions the part of the film when the family went to the movies and had laughs after. Those are the distinctions between the two articles and how they relate to the screening.
Personally I’ve learned allot about French Films specifically the French New Wave and I fell that this film 400 Blows is a great representation of the French New Wave. Although I am not a film maker or major I like the fact that the French are basically being creative in their film making. They are standing out from the norm in American cinema. There is a lot of detail in film that sometimes goes unnoticed. I am glad that I was able to experience those details by watching this fim, reading about French New Wave and doing this assignment.
Bibliography:
Ebert, Roger (1999, August 8). The 400 Blows (1959). Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990808/REVIEWS08/908080301/1023
Croce, Arlene (1960, Spring). Review: Les Quatre Cents Coups. Film Quarterly, Vol. 13. No. 3. pp. 35 – 38. Retrieved October 10, 2011, from JSTOR Database also http://www.jstor.org/stable/1210434
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)