Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Directives for the Final Stretch


Between now and the final, there will be no more additional blog-posting assignments. Use the time to finish your final projects, and to catch up on any blog-posting assignments you haven't completed yet.

Recommended Viewing/Reading, related to Walkabout

Clips from a documentary on the Yolgnu actor David Gulpilil:

http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/gulpilil-one-red-blood/clip1/

http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/gulpilil-one-red-blood/clip2/

http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/gulpilil-one-red-blood/clip3/

Gulpilil (who was known as an accomplished dancer), performing some traditional dances:

http://youtu.be/L08e91HxX-w

Two articles on, and a review of, a multimedia theatrical "re-imagining" of Walkabout:

http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/film/aust20aug05.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/arts/franklands-walkabout/2005/08/17/1123958120074.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/reviews/walkabout/2005/08/21/1124562751645.html

Tom Block, "The Face on the Barroom Floor"

I chose to write about this article because I think that Tom Block has a sincere, realistic take on depictions of violence. He talks about the prevalence of violence in film and television, noting that despite its popularity, violence is rarely depicted in a way that affects us as it should. He points out that film directors seem to care more about the number of deaths in a film than about how much impact a single act of violence can have on an audience. A pile of corpses won’t even make us flinch if we are not shown the real ugliness that it takes to put someone in that state. Block believes that the entire point of depicting gruesome violence should be to show us how terrible and sickening that side of humanity can really be, and yet that point is usually glossed over by the highly dramatized fight scenes found in films, so that we are left with violence without any substance.

Block’s writing style is fairly straightforward and casual; he makes his point without coming off as long-winded or disinterested. Here is a phrase I found interesting: “Our contemporary filmmakers tend to care only about body counts, without ever following through on their punches or actually affecting us emotionally with their maimings and gorings, which is surely the only legitimate excuse for such bedlam to begin with. In Chinatown we never quite recover from seeing Jack Nicholson’s nostril bisected by Polanski’s switchblade before the movie is barely a quarter old, while in Die Hard and the Bruckheimer movies bodies are stacked up like cordwood, yet no one in the audience thinks of choking on their popcorn. It’s unreal.” This sort of writing is really engaging because it feels like Block is giving his sincere opinion on the subject, without dressing it up or down.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Final Project

For the final project I would like to do an installation/sort-of performative piece that responds to the question does art/cinema need the real. Throughout this class we have watched such an eclectic mix of films and I have been thinking about this question quite a bit. My goal is to be able to give my answer to this question through this piece.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Film Blog Examples

Required Reading/Writing

For this week's assignment, I want you to pick ONE reading from the below list of online articles on film. None of these articles are directly related to the film we watched today -- they are simply examples of what I think is good writing on film. I'm hoping they can provide you with inspiration on ways of writing about or dealing with film -- none of them are really "academic" or "book-report-y," they just show writers who have an interesting perspective, and who are genuinely engaged with their subject matter. Hopefully it will provide some inspiration for your final project. There is no common theme among the writing, and they show various styles, and also various uses of still and film clips, to make their arguments.

Before next week's class, I want you to read one of the below articles, and write a two-paragraph response to the article on the class blog. In the first paragraph, address the content of the article: what do you think are its most interesting points? What do you most agree (or disagree) with? And in the second paragraph, write some remarks on the writer's style. How would you describe their writing style? What are some sentences or phrases that stand out to you, and why?

Here are the articles:

Tom Block on depicting violence:
http://thehighhat.com/Static/007/deadwood_block.html

"Arbogast on Film" on subtext in the 50s "giant bug" horror film Tarantula:
http://arbogastonfilm.blogspot.com/2009/09/unusual-histories.html


Mike D'Angelo on Spielberg's suspense technique in Jaws:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/jaws,45876/

David Bordwell Jackie Chan's action-film editing, versus the lackluster action editing in a late James Bond flick:
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2010/09/15/bond-vs-chan-jackie-shows-how-its-done/

Outlaw Vern on the absurdities of Tron Legacy:
http://outlawvern.com/2010/12/21/tron-legacy/

The "Self-styled Siren" on Paul Newman's acting career:
http://selfstyledsiren.blogspot.com/2008/09/paul-newman-1925-2008.html

Chris Fujiwara on the use of the zoom in different films:
http://www.hermenaut.com/a18.shtml

Final Project....

When I first read through the final project assignment my mind immediately went to the last movie I saw in theaters which is already one of my top favorites and that is Sucker Punch... The movie deals with such a fine line between reality and what's not... I think this plays perfectly into the argument that cinema does not need to be real or feel real but it does need to TOUCH upon human emotions or we wouldn't relate or enjoy the film one bit.. I'd like to write a paper with my conclusions using a movie such as this to back up my reasoning as well as doing some kind of photo/video tribute.... hmmmmm


kasey hartsock!

Cassavetes:

1. Can you detect any traces of Cassavetes style or sensibility, as it appears in "A Woman Under the Influence," in this episode? If yes, explain the commonalities you see; if no, explain the differences in tone and treatment.


I think after looking hard enough I could find small commonalities but overall the tone and treatment were completely different! The private eye TV show was pretty typical in set up, interesting, and over quickly.. Very fast passed and over quickly due to the fact it was just an episode versus the long and drawn out film. "A Woman..." does not follow any certain set up, seems to carry on longer than necessary, and is not predictable (in a certain way). The style of film was comparable though... the lighting technique very important and certain angles at fault for certain moods portrayed.





2. The format of a private eye TV show has to follow a formula to some degree -- in his independent films, Cassavetes tried to break away from the idea of formula. Why do you think Cassavetes wanted to break away from formula, and what do you think are some of the pros and cons of working within a formula?


In my own opinion I think there almost has to be a formula for a "private eye" type show, and if not specifically a mystery, a detective, and an interesting plot, suspects, and hopefully a solution at the end! I do not think it has to be in any specific order though, and if there is a way to spice up the events then please do! I think Cassavetes was a different kind of director and actor and mostly wanted to break away from formula because he wanted to be different. He didn't produce works like other directors and stood out for that reason alone.. I think there are definite pros to working within a formula and thats the basic hope of not getting it wrong.. of having interesting points, characters, and plot all may be formulaic but reaching out beyond those goals is when the film really sells. The cons of formula may be too confined for some, and breaking it leads to greatness.. (Sometimes)




Kasey Hartsock

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Cassavetes.

1) Can you detect any traces of Cassavetes style or sensibility, as it appears in "A Woman Under the Influence," in this episode? If yes, explain the commonalities you see; if no,explain the differences in tone and treatment.1. Can you detect any traces of Cassavetes style or sensibility, as it appears in "A Woman Under the Influence," in this episode? If yes, explain the commonalities you see; if no,explain the differences in tone and treatment.the Tv show that Cassavetes acted in

Cassavetes style and sensibilities was different in the TV show. firstly looking at the differences formally, I can see that the environment played a crucial part in the movie 'A Woman UNder the Influence', in the TV series the set is fake, the lighting fake, and dramatic, the extras seemed homogenously beautiful and all together the set was stilted. this influenced the plot, the tome and the delivery of Cassavetes in the TV show.

2. The format of a private eye TV show has to follow a formula to some degree -- in his independent films, Cassavetes tried to break away from the idea of formula. Why do you think Cassavetes wanted to break away from formula, and what do you think are some of the pros and cons of working within a formula?

"the workings of theatrical people as they are' was important to Cassavetes. He wanted a raw, real and intelligent delivery, that he felt was lacking in the modern day films.
- trying to break away from formula driven work, is the refreshing quality and real artistry of film directing and producing. If it is an art form one must stay true to one's vision or becomes a sell out.
the pros of working within the formula, is the effortlessness of theme and narrative. It can easily be put of the shelf and picked up by any viwer to digest. Mass market baby.

Final Project

For my final project, I'll be painting a mural on the third floor landing of the back staircase in David Hall. I want to address surrealism and how truth can still be found (and is sometimes more obvious) in deliberately non-realistic films/art. To do that, I'll be mixing black and white imagery with color imagery to bridge the gap between the real world and the imagined world.

Thoughts on John Cassavetes

1. The only thing I felt the TV show and the movie had in common is that they were both dramatic. The movie was dramatic because of the mother's craziness and the effect it had on her family. The TV show was dramatic because it was a mystery/detective show and I wanted to know who was going to do what to whom. This reminded me of clue: Ms. Scarlett in the library with a candelstick. The TV show was plotted out like this, as any detective show would be. The movie however unfolded slowly and I was not quite sure what she or her husband was going to do next.

2. To have a detective show, you have to follow a formula. I'm not too sure if it would be successful if you did not. Events have to happen in order to create something that needs to be found out so a formula makes perfect sense.
I think Cassavetes tried to break away from a formula in his movie so that he could leave people in a little bit of supsense as to what she was going to do next or what was going to happen to her next. Watching the events un-fold slowly was interesting and kept me waiting for the next thing to happen.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Thoughts on Meshes of the Afternoon

'Meshes of the Afternoon', was a creepy short film. I had no working speakers at the time I watched this film so I watched it silently. It was interesting and I actually enjoyed the film because I was able to make sense of the different events happening to her.


The first image I really liked was her taking the key out of her mouth. To me this symbolized her holding the key to her destiny, which ended up being death.


The second image that struck me as interesting was the grim reaper figure with a mirror face. I loved this. Its weird, creepy and sort of scary, especially if you're watching this alone, at work, with no sound. I also have an active, wild imagination so that works against me sometimes. I would be pretty freaked out if I walked up stairs here at work and found a person standing in a black cloak who turned to me and all I saw was myself in their face. I felt this symbolized herself and what she was about to do to herself.


Wednesday, April 13, 2011

ASSIGNMENT FOR FINAL


For your project for the final, I want you to address yourself to this question: what is the relationship of art to reality (and in particular what is the relationship of cinema to reality)? What are the uses of reality for art --in formal and/or ethical terms? Of course, "reality" can be a very ambiguous term -- sometimes when people talk about "reality" that word is a stand-in for associated words: truth, sincerity, authenticity, subjectivity. For the purposes of this project, you can define "reality" as you see fit -- but be clear about what that definition means to you.

We've seen a variety of approaches film-makers have used to attempt to bring films into closer contact with reality, among them:

• The use of improvisation
• The use of real locations rather than sets
• The use of non-professional actors (using instead people who have had experiences similar to the experiences of the characters they play)
• Giving performers leeway to draw upon their own experiences to inform the dialogue and situations of the characters they are creating
• Documentary-style filming techniques (such as handheld camera work)
• A "transparency" of style: straight-on framing, no camera flourishes, just letting events play out in front of the camera without imposing a flashy style
• "Subjective" style -- using camera and editing techniques to make the viewer feel the subjective states the characters are feeling (of course this is in direct opposition to the previous approach -- each approach serves a different idea of "realism")
• Digging into subject matter (whether types of characters, classes of people, or even difficult emotions) that are ordinarily ignored by mainstream cinema
• Doing research into a place or a social situation, and letting that research shape the story
• Letting a story follow its own organic logic, without fitting it into a formulaic structure

In your final project, you can make a broad argument about reality and cinema. Some choices for a theme could be: Does art need the "real"? Does society need art that attempts to come to grips with reality? Some of the film-makers whose work we've watched use art as a way of combating what they see as an artificial, delusional or hypocritical mainstream culture. Is this a legitimate use of cinema, or is it a misunderstanding of the social function of cinematic fictions? Do people just naturally go to the movies to escape reality, rather than to encounter it?

If questions of this type seem too abstract, you can be far more specific in your project -- for instance, focusing on a film-maker (or making a close reading of a particular film), and describing the way the relationship between film and reality is worked out -- through film technique, through script, through performance. Describe the way reality is either approached or repelled by the film-maker's choices (and perhaps it's not an either/or: for instance, "Do The Right Thing" presents an interesting hybrid -- a script and dialogue that feels very real and conversational, placed in a visual style that is very deliberately artificial).

You are not restricted to "realism" as subject matter; if the surrealistic or deliberately non-realistic films were more interesting to you, you could make your final project about non- or anti-realistic films, film-makers or strategies. This could still be framed in terms of the "real" (though not in terms of "realism"); some anti-realist film-makers address themselves to truth, using their surprising or shocking images to materialize ideas that ordinary films would ignore, suppress or repress. And yet, even beyond this, perhaps it's the very flight from reality that appeals to you -- perhaps you feel it's important that art isn't contained by reality, that art is a space for the impossible to happen, a space where a new, more flexible, more strange reality can be invented.

Again, you can take a broad approach (as indicated in some of the ideas in the previous paragraph), or you can be more focused and specific, narrowing down to a film-maker or film, and explaining what techniques and choices are used to break reality, or it re-invent it toward the film-maker's ends.

If you're most comfortable writing a paper for the final project, then write a paper -- it should be at least 2,000 words (and be prepared to post it on the blog, with accompanying stills or clips from the work or works you're writing about). However, I'd be equally (if not more) interested in a non-typical way of addressing these questions. Feel free to make a video essay (of a duration somewhere between 4 and 10 minutes), or to give an artwork response (just give me an idea of the intention and scope of your artwork by next week's class). You can talk about your own art, and the relationship it has to reality, as well as drawing on examples from other art disciplines (painting, photography, sculpture, etc) -- but I do want you to address cinema directly. You can use the films we've seen as class as examples or jumping-off points, but don't restrict yourself to those films -- I want you to cast a net that's wider than what we've watched in class. On the day of our final (scheduled for Thursday, May 5, 3-6pm), be prepared to present your paper or your artwork with the class, as an oral presentation

Instead of responding to a short film or piece of criticism for next Wednesday's class, I want you to write up a one-paragraph summary of your ideas for your final project, posted to the blog.

1.

I found the episode and the movie to be very dramatic, thus they related. Although I did not feel they truly related because of the pace. I found the pace of the episode to be rather quick; maybe because it was for television, while the movie, Women Under The Influence, was a lot slower; again maybe because it was a movie. Murder for Credit, seemed very scripted and formulated. I guess what i am trying to say is; theres a beginning scene, introduction to the murder case, the investigation, the arrest, the pleed of guilt, and the end. While Women Under the Influence seemed to have a unique plot. One thing I enjoy about the television show and the movie, they were shot beautifully, great natural light and depth of field in the camera.



2.


As I mentioned earlier, Murder for Credit, followed a formula, a beginning scene, introduction to the murder case, the investigation, the arrest, the pleed of guilt, and the end. While Women Under the Influence had a similar movie plot, although the way the movie actually played out was some unconventional in my eyes. I think having a formula for television is great! The audience can follow what is going on, if one were to change it each episode people would be lost. Where as a for a movie, people are expecting twists, although they do expect to see a beginning, middle and end. The stuff between can be all sorts of mixed up, this in my eyes makes a movie great. I’m sure Cassavetes wanted to break away from this formula after working x amount of television episodes; who wouldn’t.



Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Cry of Jazz

1. Cry of Jazz portrays the use of music as a political statement in a very compelling way. It directly explains the reasons jazz sounds the way it does, down to some of the more minute nuances and sub-genres, and uses frank imagery to support its case. These various elements combine to paint jazz as a whole in an admirable, disparaging, bleak, then hopeful light. It is also interesting, though, to see the case it presents for the death of jazz-while the relevance is eternal, there is only so much evolution the form itself can make before it becomes redundant and, consequently, stagnates.
2. I really enjoyed listening to the more authentic jazz throughout, as well as looking at the imagery presented. Tribal idols accented the boundless creative merits of the negro people, while Jim Crow signs and decrepit project apartments portrayed their miserable state of being in 1930s America, as well as modern America. It was interesting to see how drastically using the origins and meaning of jazz as context changed the feel of the performances, a feel further driven home by close-up editing and quick scene changes that make the frantic music seem even more frantic.
3. The film is definitely still relevant. Looking at the film, it's easy to take the points raised about the death of jazz and apply them to the ever-changing, yet ever-repeating landscape of music. Perhaps rock as a whole is dead. Perhaps pop and rap as a whole are dead. Perhaps even music itself is dead, or at least dying. Besides that, more relevance is found in looking how white corporate America takes various genres of music, absorbs them into itself, and presents its own take on them, for better or worse.

John Cassavetes

1. Can you detect any traces of Cassavetes style or sensibility, as it appears in "A Woman Under the Influence," in this episode? If yes, explain the commonalities you see; if no,explain the differences in tone and treatment.1. Can you detect any traces of Cassavetes style or sensibility, as it appears in "A Woman Under the Influence," in this episode? If yes, explain the commonalities you see; if no,explain the differences in tone and treatment.

I feel that the styles were not very similar between "A Women Under the Influence" and the episode I watched. I felt like in the movie he seemed more "real" and not as much like an actor. In the TV episode he felt like he was playing a character that he didn't understand or relate to as well as the character he played in the movie. He seemed like he didn't have much life to him in the TV series compared to the movie. It was interesting to see how different he was on TV and in a movie.

2. The format of a private eye TV show has to follow a formula to some degree -- in his independent films, Cassavetes tried to break away from the idea of formula. Why do you think Cassavetes wanted to break away from formula, and what do you think are some of the pros and cons of working within a formula?

I think Cassavetes wanted to break away from formula because he was trying to do something different, something that would get peoples attention. If you go out of the box and create something new and exciting it is gonna generate attention. He doesn't just want to tell you a simple story and have it end there. He really wants to create art that makes you think about that you just saw. In a way he is interacting with the audience by allowing room for interpretation which in the end creates a more interesting story unlike a stock TV show. Working with a formula can be tough. Looking at the pros it can produce a a good piece of work that people will enjoy but not be flattered by. The con of using a formula is the fact that there is not much room to try different things or reach out with new ideas that some might think are crazy. It doesn't allow for as much freedom or to take as much risk unlike not using a formula.

John Cassavetes: Assignment Response

Victor G.

1. Can you detect any traces of Cassavetes style or sensibility, as it appears in "A Woman Under the Influence," in this episode? If yes, explain the commonalities you see; if no,explain the differences in tone and treatment.


There are few similarities. How calm he looked while saying his lines made it feel real. He makes a certain look when he is puzzled that I think is recognizable in both films. But there are certainly some differences, In the TV show he didn’t change the tone of his voice at all, not much emotion in it besides playing cool. In A Woman Under the Influence he is a completely different person. His character has a lot of personality and made watching him enjoyable. Seeing the different emotional roles he was playing was very believable.

2. The format of a private eye TV show has to follow a formula to some degree -- in his independent films, Cassavetes tried to break away from the idea of formula. Why do you think Cassavetes wanted to break away from formula, and what do you think are some of the pros and cons of working within a formula?

In his clip about television sucks it shows a lot about him. In how he doesn’t want to be just another TV show or film. Not just and other film where they blow your head open then that’s all. He wants to make a film that make you think and dive into the story. Pros and cons about working with a formula. Well with a formula you follow the steps and once you’re out of steps you’re done and bam a finished product similar to all others that used the same formula. Not much space to mess around with. But when you stay off the formula you get the chance to explore you thoughts and ideas. The final product may take longer without the steps to guide you but it will be your own and not just another answer to the formula.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

John Cassavetes: A Woman Under the Influence

Assignment: Required Viewing/Writing


John Cassavetes was someone who worked both inside and outside the studio system. An an actor, he was in several Hollywood movies -- he used the money he made acting to finance his independent films. One of his earlier acting roles was in the TV show "Johnny Staccato," in which he played a jazz pianist/private eye. He actually directed a few episodes as well -- I'd like you to watch the episode linked below (it runs roughly a half hour), and answer the following questions in a blog post:

1. Can you detect any traces of Cassavetes style or sensibility, as it appears in "A Woman Under the Influence," in this episode? If yes, explain the commonalities you see; if no, explain the differences in tone and treatment.

2. The format of a private eye TV show has to follow a formula to some degree -- in his independent films, Cassavetes tried to break away from the idea of formula. Why do you think Cassavetes wanted to break away from formula, and what do you think are some of the pros and cons of working within a formula?

"Murder for Credit," a Cassavetes-directed episode of "Johnny Staccato" (the clips have embedding disabled, so you'll have to watch them on youtube):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78PXuXj-9TQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8drAQMSj28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLD7Wf_LL1U

Recommended Viewing:

Television sucks:


Cassavetes directing:

Husbands (more parts on youtube):


Love Streams (more parts on youtube):


From "A Constant Forge":

Meshes

After viewing both movies I choose to discuss Meshes of the Afternoon. Both films were “out there” but Dali’s movie was a little more, but had some sort of plot. Both films were very eery, and simply annoying. Why do they use “head ache music / sounds”? Both dealt with the concept of death. This concept was hidden a little more in Meshes of the Afternoon.



Meshes started out with an arm piercing into the frame vertically holding a flower. The arm was to long to be considered normal. Thus I thought the rest of the film would have similar aspects of distortion. Although there was not in actual form like the arm. But rather in time. This distortion I speak about was when she came up the stairs, each time it was slightly different. One time slow motion, another time it was as if the house was shaking or if gravity had been shifted.



The symbols I found to be interesting where the key, knife, and grim reaper. After watching the whole film I believe the key and the door was a metaphor for the after life. As if she was dead and this was her key into heaven or maybe hell. Now the thought of hell could be what this film was about? It might, but back to the key and knife. There is a scene where the key turns into the knife. I think the knife is a murder weapon. The women does “die” I believe. Thus she was murdered. Then there was the grim reaper figure. I say this because he in my mind is the true simple of death, and I particularly enjoy the scene where he lays the flower in the bed. I see that as, “Your Dead” although in a graceful way.

In the end, both films were unique and something I would never want to watch again. Although they have aspects I particularly enjoy, such as the slow motion and the use of symbols.

Meshes of the Afternoon



This short  film has so much abstract symbolism that it's almost difficult to focus on something in particular yet astounded by how many times the symbols keep reappearing. Therefore I am combining my sequences and images into a summary to try and explain what they mean themselves and in context with everything else taking place.






One of the first details shown to us in the movie is a hand holding a flower (I LOVE this image) on a long driveway which to me meant spring, life, and in bloom even though used upside down and not in a very pretty manner.
Again the flower is used in a scene where it's carried by the "grim reaper" figure which I now see the flower as a symbol of death and dead end because as she chases the figure it only leads her back to her door step... So maybe there is still a sign of beginning again.






Some of the other symbolism used is a key in particular. In this film it's used in a couple different ways one of the first is when we see the main character take a key out of her mouth. It becomes a symbol of a weapon when it turns into a knife and uses to confront herself. This sends a message of knowledge or answers as a weapon.
Which leads me to believe that this film deals with a little self discovery or looking inward.
Another usage of a key is directly after, falling down stairs, which seems to mean that the answers are slipping out of her hands or not getting any closer. Something is out of her reach or grasp and even the "down stairs" has a negative quality of disappearing.






Kasey Hartsock

Response: "Un Chien Andalou"

Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali were adamant that Un Chien Andalou contained no symbolism whatsoever. Their goal was to make a film full of imagery that could not be explained or rationalized. I like that, because it lets me form my own interpretations.

There is a shot in this film featuring ants pouring from a hole in a young man’s hand. At first, I didn’t quite know how to interpret this. Dali associated ants with death and decay, but beyond that I wasn’t sure what it might mean. A short while later, when the man tries to sexually assault a young woman, I immediately thought of the ants in his palm. I felt that the ants represented the ugliness and repulsiveness of his urge to put his hands on her against her will.

Another interesting sequence, probably my favorite in the film, was at the very end. A happy couple walks down the beach, smiling and clinging to each other. It appears to be the final shot. Then a title card appears with the words “In Spring”, followed by a shot of the couple, now dead, buried in the sand up to their chests. A couple of thoughts came to mind: first, the title card places this scene in springtime, so my immediate (and silly) thought was that the couple had been planted as flowers. Also, Dali was a bit obsessed with a painting by Jean-Francois Millet, “The Angelus”, featuring a peasant couple praying in the middle of a field. The pose of the figures in that painting appeared a number of times in Dali’s own paintings, and it seems to be echoed in the poses of the couple in the sand. Dali found “The Angelus” to be symbolic of female sexual aggression, which he tied into his own associations between sex and death. When I considered that, the transition from a happy young couple to a dead young couple imitating "The Angelus" became even more disconcerting.