NERF

Nerf Wars [WT] is a short film I'm working on, which we are trying to get funding for through Pozible to be able to make it happen! It should be a lot of fun, there's lots of great, talented people involved, mostly Film & TV students and other experienced volunteers. 


It's going to be a deadpan 7 minute action film featuring Nerf guns. We're filming it in an old Masonic Temple, called the 'Castle' - "Nerf is the weapon, the Castle is the battlefield". Take a look at the Pozible website linked above for more information. Posters and footage coming soon. 

La Jetée

"He ran toward her. And when he recognized the man who'd trailed him from the camp, he realized there was no escape out of time, and that that moment he'd been granted to see as a child, and that had obsessed him forever after... was the moment of his own death." 

What was Lynch thinking?

My review of Inland Empire (watched for my contemporary cinema film screening class)...

Never before have I finished watching a film and felt less certain of what I have just experienced than I did with Inland Empire. David Lynch’s 2006 low budget mind-bending film takes the audience on an unexplored journey, causing you to question reality and the human mind.

As the tagline for the film states, the overall storyline is about “a woman in trouble”. The woman, an actress (played by Laura Dern) gains the lead role in a film and as they begin shooting, it is revealed that the film is actually a remake of another production that was never finished due to mysterious events. Her life then takes a curious turn as the ‘real’ world and the fictional world of the film begin to merge and reality is questioned. The abstract nature of the film is enhanced by the occasional cut away to a TV show featuring three anthropomorphic rabbits.

Inland Empire was shot on a low budget with a DV camera making it look like a poor quality student film. If it were made by anyone but Lynch it would have been immediately disregarded. The problems I had with this film were its unnecessary length, how visually bland it was and the complete lack of any coherent narrative whatsoever. This film is certainly a unique experience, it intrigues me but at the same time I don’t think I could sit through it again for a long time. Perhaps if you go into the film not expecting any form of coherent narrative or film conventions then it would be easier to immerse yourself into this mysterious creation from Lynch. 

I enjoyed this review of the film...
 http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s2081564.htm

Life in a Day

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

I can't say that I had been anticipating the release of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, as I was expecting it to be just another American blockbuster. However, my curiosity was piqued when I started hearing positive reviews about the film (plus the fact that James Franco stars in it helps) and when I ended up seeing it last week, I was pleased to find that it surpassed my original expectations.

I haven’t seen the 1968 original Planet of the Apes, just the Tim Burton re-imagining which I was quite disappointed by. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a prequel to and reboot of the original series, managing to maintain the mythology of the series while improving some of the weaker elements and making it more believable. It’s the first Apes film to feature animated apes rather than having actors dressed in ape suits. WETA just seem to keep improving and impressing audiences with their visual effects. The effects were seamless, not stealing the audience’s attention (except to admire how good they were) and allowing the narrative to carry on rather than take away from it. Motion capture technology is a wonderful advancement for the film industry and Andy Serkis seems to have a great talent for portraying non-humans.

The fact that the apes didn’t try to take over the world in the film (which just doesn’t seem realistic) but rather become the dominant species due to the spread of a virus that is deadly to humans but which the apes are immune to. This seems a much more plausible cause to the downfall of the human race and the rise of the apes. This is not shown in the film, just implied by the final sequence and the credits.

I had not previously heard of the director Rupert Wyatt and Apes was only his 3rd feature. I was impressed by his work on this film and I hope that he continues to make successful films in the future. I was also pleased to note that the cinematographer was an Australian, Andrew Lesnie, whose work (such as DOP on the Lord of the Rings films) I have a great appreciation for. 

The film sets up for a sequel, which will probably turn into a series so let’s hope they deliver. Apes is more than the average Hollywood blockbuster, with an interesting storyline and the involvement of some truly talented people. 

Arbitrary quote

"All I can do is be me. Whoever that is." 

                                                     - Bob Dylan 

The Fall

Incredibly beautiful film. That is all.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

I'm not usually fond of American adaptations or remakes of films, but I think I may make an exception with David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, to be released in December this year.  

Did I mention I like quotes from filmmakers?

"We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means. I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it's a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it. " 

                                                                                               - Andrei Tarkovsky

Ivan's Childhood and Andrei Tarkovsky

When I discovered the first films of Tarkovsky, it was a miracle. I suddenly found myself before a door to which I had never had the key.a room which I had always wished to penetrate and wherein he felt perfectly at ease. Someone was able to express what I had always wished to say without knowing how. For me Tarkovsky is the greatest filmmaker.  

                                                                                           - Ingmar Bergman

I can’t say that I’m familiar with any Russian films, let alone Russian directors so it’s quite unsurprising that I hadn’t heard of Andrei Tarkovsky. Tarkovsky was a film director, opera director, writer and film theorist – quite well known by many people around the world and considered to be one of the most influential filmmakers of the 20th century. 

He made his first feature film, Ivan’s Childhood in 1962 just two years after he completed film school. Adapted from the story by Vladimir Bogomolov, it is about a 12 year old orphaned boy who is a spy for the Russian army during World War II.  While made in the sixties, Tarkovsky chose to create the film in black and white, saying “in a black and white film there is no feeling of something extraneous going on, [and] the audience can watch the film without being distracted from the action by colour”. He certainly had a unique approach to films and filmmaking, which was only advantageous – Ivan’s Childhood won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival in 1962 as well as the Golden Gate Award for Best Director at the San Francisco International Film Festival. 

It is not a typical war film with heroic soldiers in extensive battle scenes and is a film with very little violence. Instead, it is a film that explores the impact of the war on the people involved in it and the effect that the loss of family has upon people. The narrative is non-linear with frequent flashbacks or dreams that Ivan is experiencing that involve his mother and a happier time. Dreams and memory are recurring motifs throughout the film and throughout Tarkovsky’s other works. Water and reflections are significant motifs in Ivan’s Childhood and the forest setting of the film is quite impressive, resulting in some admirable composition. 

Ivan’s Childhood is a haunting, emotional film and one that I immensely enjoyed. Hopefully I’ll get my hands on a copy of Tarkovsky’s book Sculpting in Time as it sounds like an interesting read and I look forward to watching more of his films. 

Females + the Film Industry

It was probably going to happen eventually and writing about Jane Campion got me thinking about women in the film industry, so here’s my rant about it…

There are many people in the film (and television) industry that I greatly admire, respect and gain inspiration from. I wrote about Tarantino a few weeks ago, as he is one such example, but I find it difficult to think of females who have that same sort of impact upon me. That’s not to say that there aren’t talented filmmakers that are women, because clearly they are but the industry is one that is still very male dominated.

Sofia Coppola and Jane Campion are two of my favourite directors – but that’s only two out of who knows how many. As someone aspiring to become a part of this brilliant industry, it becomes difficult to imagine it really happening when so few women have actually made a name for themselves.

I find it such a relief when a film that is written or directed by a woman is actually a good piece of cinema, as we need to prove that we are more than capable of creating great works of art, because we are. This is why women such as Catherine Hardwicke irritate me so much, because I feel that her lack of talent reflects badly on female filmmakers. Others may disagree, but it’s my blog and that’s my opinion!

All too often, female roles are written by males – how are they going to be a satisfactory exploration if the role hasn’t even come from a female in the first place? There have been some good female roles written by men and Ellen Ripley (played by Sigourney Weaver) from Alien is certainly a great example but I feel that it’s something that doesn’t happen enough.

I think another quote from Jane Campion is suitable to finish with:

“I would love to see more women directors because they represent half of the population – and gave birth to the whole world. Without them writing and being directors, the rest of us are not going to know the whole story.”

(And a picture of Ellen Ripley being awesome)

Jane Campion... the one where I discuss her films

While I have been interested in watching films by writer-director Jane Campion, her only work that I was familiar with was Bright Star. It instantly became one of my favourite films because of its absolute beauty, both in terms of the stylistic and narrative elements.

So I was excited to hear that we would be looking at auteur theory and viewing a selection of works from Jane Campion.  Film form is an art and the director is the artist or auteur (author), whose influence and unique style can be identified throughout their work. The auteur theory began with the French New Wave in the 1950s, claiming that films should reflect the director’s personal vision. 

There are not many globally recognised female directors as the film industry is one that has been male-dominated since it began.  Of course that’s not forgetting the likes of Sofia Coppola and Kathryn Bigelow (first female to win an Oscar for Best Director), who have certainly made their impression in the industry.

Campion was born in New Zealand but her film career began in Sydney (so she is generally considered Australian) and has made a number of short and feature films over her lifetime. Her 1993 film The Piano won the Palme d’Or at Cannes and was nominated for a number of Oscars in 1994, with Campion winning Best Writing, Screenplay and Holly Hunter taking out the Best Actress in a Leading Role. Commercially and critically, The Piano is considered to be her most successful film. 

Set and filmed on location in New Zealand, the film takes place in the 1850s, and tells the story of a mute woman by the name of Ada (Holly Hunter) who is married off to a man by her father and must move to New Zealand to live with him. Ada has not spoken since she was 6 years old, instead communicating through sign language to her daughter and through playing music on her piano. She is an intriguing character, who manages to make quite a lot of noise for someone who doesn’t speak. She is quite restrained and rigid, but when she plays piano she instantly relaxes, her fingers flowing and dancing across the keys. She makes beautiful, quite haunting music that reflects the mood that she is in at the time. The music is thus used as a key plot device - as a narrative element rather than just a stylistic addition to the film. 

The landscape and setting of the film also plays a fairly significant role in the film. Impressive sweeping shots of the forest and sea are included, establishing the type of environment that Ada and her daughter are moving to. This setting gives the film a rich colour palette, with green and blue hues. The environment proves to be a struggle for the characters that try to control it, as opposed to the native kiwis that don’t see it as something needing to be tamed. Water and mud are also elements that cause difficulties for characters and appear repeatedly throughout the film. To get to New Zealand, they must travel across the ocean with all of their possessions, including Ada’s piano. As the piano is too heavy to carry when they first get there, it must be left on the beach until it can be retrieved. Many shots of the piano on the beach and waves crashing against it are interspersed with the rest of the narrative, showing its importance to Ada and the strong bond that she has with it. Underwater shots of the boat crossing the ocean are used at the beginning and end of the film, creating a sense of a circular narrative.

In terms of auteur theory, looking at The Piano and Bright Star, it is possible to see images and elements that Campion has explored and re-used as they are possibly things that intrigue her and which she is drawn to explore. Both films are set in the 19th century, during the colonial period and include strong, unique female characters who stand up for themselves and won’t settle for anything that isn’t what they want. They are quite melodramatic films that explore romantic relationships as well as close family bonds.

A few stylistic elements that I picked up on were the use of flowing white curtains blowing in the breeze (it’s an image that I distinctly remember and love from Bright Star so I noticed immediately when it was used in The Piano), characters sending notes to each other, rhythmic and flowing camera movement and characters viewing the world through something else (through holes, from behind curtains, etc.) showing their separation from the world or other characters. There are probably many more, however I’m just going by memory from Bright Star as it’s been a while since I last watched it. I found both films to be quite naturalistic in terms of their style and lighting in particular and they are both very beautiful yet haunting works.

While Campion cannot be held responsible for the whole film, as a vast array of people are involved in the process of filmmaking, it’s still possible to see her unique touch and I look forward to experiencing more of her films. 

Article of Interest:

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2002/great-directors/campion/

Jane Campion

"But short films are not inferior, just different. I think the short gives a freedom to film-makers. What's appealing is that you don't have as much responsibility for storytelling and plot. They can be more like a portrait, or a poem. The great thing is that almost everyone ends up doing something creative with them, even those directors who then go on to make quite boring features." - Jane Campion

Realism

Realism is the depiction of subjects as they appear in everyday life, without embellishment and romanticism, revealing the truth and emphasizing the mediocre. Of course the irony is that it’s very difficult to ever capture the absolute truth. Even without embellishment, a picture is still just one representation, revealing one aspect of a subject and not the whole truth. The neo-realist film movement began in Italy in the 1940s, intending to show the reality of how people were actually living in a dramatic context. The conventions of neo-relist films often involved the use of non-trained actors alongside trained actors, giving the films more authenticity.

Visually, neo-relist films are much in the style of documentaries: quite pared back and minimalist. They were mostly filmed on location, using available light, which added to the naturalistic effect. While the neo-realist movement declined in 1952 with a shift in society, its influences can still be seen in modern cinema. Now, more conventional films are adopting the realist visual techniques, using hand-held camera and simpler techniques and settings in order to create a more authentic environment for the characters.

The 2007 short film Jerrycan from Julius Avery is an example of modern cinema adopting the realist techniques. The visual elements of the film are naturalistic - it was filmed on location using minimal lighting to enhance the stark, bleak reality of the setting. Local children who were inexperienced with acting in films were cast in the main roles. This gave the characters a sense of believability, as if they could be from any small Australian country town.

The camera movement was very fluid and unobtrusive. One memorable scene for me was when the boys are riding around town on their bikes, the camera moving along with them, as though it could be from the perspective of another child riding with them. 

I could appreciate this film for it’s merits, and I can understand how it became a success. However, this is not a film that I particularly enjoyed or was incredibly amazed by. I just felt that once the story had been set up I could see where it was headed and I felt as though it was something that I’d seen and experienced before. Despite this it is a good example of the use of neo-realist techniques in contemporary films, creating an authentic representation of characters from a low socio-economic landscape. 

The Red Shoes

Written, produced and directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, the 1948 film The Red Shoes is about a young ballerina who must chose between love and ballet - between married life and the life of a professional dancer. It stars Moira Shearer as the ballerina Victoria Page and Marius Goring as Julian Craster, the composer for the ballet company whom Victoria falls in love with. 

(I just discovered that Marius Goring was in Doctor Who in 1967, so I’ll have to find and watch those episodes now…)

Conflict and desire are driving forces in narrative and in the film the domineering impresario, Lermontov (Anton Walbrook) tempts Victoria with the promise of becoming a truly great prima ballerina.

The ballet of The Red Shoes is based on the Hans Christian Anderson fable. It tells the story of a young girl who puts on a pair of red ballet shoes, which she then cannot remove and must continue dancing despite how tired she gets, eventually leading to her death.

There are parallels between the ballet and Victoria’s own story. Being in the ballet company is where her passion lies, but it’s like putting on the red shoes – once she is a part of it there is no escape.

This of course alludes to the death of Victoria and she does eventually throw herself off a balcony into an oncoming train, overcome with the pressure of having to choose between the ballet and her husband. Although this was foreshadowed it was still an emotional scene and quite shocking to see.

The way it was cross cut with shots of Craster running towards her from the train station and Lermontov explaining to the audience of the ballet that she would no longer be dancing created a very powerful scene. It was haunting cinema and executed so well.

However the film then shows her after she jumped, alive after all, she asks Craster to remove the red shoes. While symbolic, this scene ruined the whole mood for me and left me feeling disappointed. The scene before it was so full of heightened emotion and had such an impact but that all completely disappeared after learning that she survived.

It is still an excellent piece of cinema and credit must go to cinematographer Jack Cardiff as well as the production designer who created a visually remarkable film. The sequence where Victoria dances the ballet of The Red Shoes really stood out to me in terms of the stylistic elements.

One thing I’m yet to understand is why anyone does ballet - if films such as this prove anything, it’s that no good ever comes of being a professional ballet dancer!

Tarantino Appreciation

Last week I re-watched Kill Bill Vol. 1& 2 and Quentin Tarantino has quickly become my favourite director of the moment. I’m quite certain that he’s an absolutely crazy genius (in the best possible way) and a brilliant filmmaker.

Tarantino has such a distinct style and always creates unique films that are an amalgamation of so many different genres. How do you classify his films? They’re of their own genre entirely! He clearly has an eclectic film taste and pays homage to other films so well. He doesn’t just repeat what other people have done before him, he recreates and reimagines film conventions with his individual twist.

You can tell that he is someone who loves films and the whole process of filmmaking. All of the elements are so well thought out and with so much detail and passion involved. This passion translates so well on screen and it grabs the attention of the audience and makes watching his films so ridiculously enjoyable.

As someone who wants to work in the industry, his type of respect and enthusiasm for films is inspiring. He’s not someone who makes films to make money. He’s doing it because it’s what he is passionate about and that’s the attitude I have and hope to always have towards filmmaking.

Frankenstein Part Two

The screening of Danny Boyle’s theatre production Frankenstein was last night. I think that filming theatre productions is a great concept because it allows people around the world the opportunity to see some excellent actors on stage in fantastic productions, which they wouldn’t normally get the chance to see.

Before the screening we saw about 15 minutes of footage about the making of show, how it was envisioned by the writer and brought to life. This was very insightful to see and it also emphasized the themes of the play, ensuring that the audience thought about these things during the production. 

There were about three or four cameras set up in the theatre recording the play, so that what we saw was part film/part play as we were able to view the performances from different angles than a normal viewing in the theatre – yet we could see the audience there as well, so it wasn’t completely like watching a film.

Childlike in his innocence but grotesque in form, Frankenstein’s bewildered creature is cast out into a hostile universe by his horror-struck maker. Meeting with cruelty wherever he goes, the friendless Creature, increasingly desperate and vengeful, determines to track down his creator and strike a terrifying deal. Urgent concerns of scientific responsibility, parental neglect, cognitive development and the nature of good and evil are embedded within this thrilling and deeply disturbing classic gothic tale.

I’m not very familiar with Mary Shelley’s novel but like most people I know the 1931 film version with Boris Karloff as the Monster. The monster in the film is quite aggressive and unable to learn and doesn't really have a form of intellect. However in the novel as with this theatre adaptation, the creature is intelligent, having the ability to learn, talk, reason and feel emotion.

The Creature is taught to speak and read by the blind peasant De Lacey, the only person who accepts him as an equal, as he is the only person who cannot see him and therefore is not disgusted or frightened of him and can see his true nature. The Creature quickly learns the ways of the world and they are quite a confronting reflection on humanity.

As he says the most important thing he learned was how to lie. He points out the flaws of humanity – how we don’t want to be lonely and just want to be part of a community, we move to cities to become closer to other people and yet at the same time we fight wars and kill each other off so readily.

He questions our behaviour because he is an outsider and can see how wrong things are – whilst we may agree that these things are indeed wrong, we accept them as a part of life and become desensitized to some of the horrific things that go on.

The themes of Frankenstein are still relevant to society today with scientists playing god, creating life artificially and the moral implications of this. Elizabeth makes a point to Frankenstein – if he wants to create life, to create another human, why can he not the same way that everyone does – why must he experiment and create a monster like this?

The servant/master relationship is explored in the production as well but they go one step further by swapping the roles of the two main actors each night. When I saw it Benedict Cumberbatch was Victor Frankenstein and Jonny Lee Miller his Creature. It would be interesting to see them in the reverse roles to see their similarities and differences and to see if there is something of Frankenstein in his Creature.

All of the elements of the production were excellent from the costumes and props to the set design and the use of lighting. I also really enjoyed the music because it had a very industrial, metallic sort of sound that you can hear in the trailer I posted on Tuesday.

Frankenstein

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is adapted for the stage by Nick Dear and realised by Danny Boyle in his return to the theatre after winning the Academy Award for best director for Slumdog Millionaire. Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller will alternate the roles of Victor Frankenstein and the Creature.

I’m going to see a screening of Frankenstein tomorrow night, so I’ll probably write about what I think of it after that, but in the meantime, here’s a trailer for it…

Character

In a narrative the agents of cause and effect are characters – they create and react to events and drive the narrative forward. They are complex and well developed (in a well written narrative) and may possess several traits.

Character archetypes fulfill a particular role in the narrative. They are the characters that are always there, that we are familiar with and intuitively recognize because they have been present since the earliest stories, since legends and mythologies.

So, what are these archetypes?

- Protagonists or driver characters:   Commonly known as the hero, they are the central characters that drive the action and the narrative.

- Antagonist:   “Bad guy”, they are directly opposed to the protagonist, they attempt to defeat the protagonist or stop them from achieving what it is they want to achieve. They drive the external conflict against the protagonist.

- Guardian:   Teacher or helper who aids the protagonist. They are the mentor or “wise old man/ woman” (think Gandalf or Dumbledore)

- Contagonist:   Hinders and deludes the protagonist, they are the temptation and desire. Unlike the antagonists who exist to prevent the protagonist from moving forward, the contagonist is there to hinder or delay the protagonist

- Passenger:   Sidekick, they show unfailing loyalty and support (Samwise Gamgee or Ron Weasley)

- Skeptic:   Disbeliever, doubts everything

As I was writing this, I was thinking of examples of each archetype and I found that they were easiest to identify in fantasy or science fiction. This is because these stories are normally about a protagonist who goes on a journey and encounters different characters, which may assist them or cause conflict and hinder their progress. It does sound like a generalization, but it’s an integral element to these types of narrative.

This brings me to characters that are not clearly or easily categorised because they may have facets of various archetypes. This makes them more complex and at the same time more realistic, because each of us contain these archetypes within us (to varying degrees). 

I watched the first episode of Boardwalk Empire and it’s a classic example of characters that are an amalgamation of facets of different characters. It is very much film noir in style - there is a blurring of the lines between the typical good and bad and you get a protagonist who is deeply flawed and not entirely a “good” character.  Despite this, they are likeable or generally have the support of the audience.

(Spoiler Alert!) Set during the Prohibition period in the 1920s, Boardwalk Empire focuses on Enoch ‘Nucky’ Thompson (played by Steve Buscemi and based upon Enoch L. Johnson) the corrupt Treasurer of Atlantic City and very powerful figure who deals with gangsters, politicians and government agents. He is represented as a hypocrite - supporting Prohibition in public and gaining the support from the community whilst at the same time planning deals with people illegally producing and selling alcohol in order to make himself a profit.

Margaret Schroeder, a pregnant young Irish mother turns to Nucky for assistance, which he seems to resent at the beginning. Nevertheless, he gives her money and has his driver drop her home. While this appears to be an act of kindness, he didn’t give the impression that he genuinely cared and was just doing what was expected of him. Then when Nucky discovers how badly her husband treats her and how her husband took the money and used it to gamble with, Nucky starts to show that maybe he does care about her or what his money is being used for. Finally he has Margaret’s husband killed after he beats her and causes her to lose her unborn baby – the audience see this as a positive thing and support Nucky's actions because he was doing the right thing for Margaret by getting rid of her horrible, violent husband.

Thus, Enoch Thompson is an ambiguous protagonist who is corrupt yet shows compassion and ensures that those under his control get what they deserve.

Never Let Me Go

As children, Ruth, Kathy and Tommy, spend their childhood at a seemingly idyllic English boarding school. As they grow into young adults, they find that they have to come to terms with the strength of the love they feel for each other, while preparing themselves for the haunting reality that awaits them. (IMDb.com)

I’ve been anticipating the release of Never Let Me Go since I first heard about it last year. I tried not to spoil the story before I actually saw it, so that everything would be new and surprising when I finally did. Now that I think of it, I’m not sure I ever saw a trailer for it - not this year at least.

So I got the chance to see it at last and I was not disappointed. It was such a beautiful film both in a narrative and stylistic sense. This is very much a character driven film and the acting was so strong from the whole cast. The three leads: Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield certainly proved themselves in this film, bringing the characters to life, making them believable and pulling off some very emotional scenes.

Their young counterparts were just as impressive – Isobel Meikle-Small, who played young Kathy (Carey Mulligan) looked so similar to Carey that I was certain that they were somehow related. Each of their characteristics followed through from child to adult, making it that bit more convincing to watch. 

In Dan Jolin’s review for Empire Online, he dubbed the film a “sci-fi weepie” – while the themes of the film are science fiction, it’s not set on a space ship, far in the future or even a different planet. The story takes place in 20th century England, albeit in an alternate one where the children are raised to become donors for the people on whim they are ‘based’, before they ‘complete’ which is their term for dying. It explores themes of love and existential questions about life and fate.

Steve Weintraub said of the film:

I managed to see a screening here at TIFF and the film really hit me.  Normally when I see a movie, I immediately want to talk about it with friends.  But after watching Never Let Me Go, I didn’t want to talk to anyone.  That’s because the film deals with big issues and it tackles them without telling you how to think – which is one of the best parts about the Alex Garland script and Mark Romanek’s direction.

The film is very emotional and haunting, especially the way in which the characters calmly accept their fate, because they have known no different their whole lives and therefore don’t even attempt to flee from this captivity.

The score carries the emotion of the film and assists in creating the atmosphere of the film. This beauty is reflected in the mise-en-scene of the film from the costumes, which remain quite constant, with a 1960s feel to them, the colours of which reflect the setting of the English countryside – with many shades of green and brown.

One thing that particularly stood out to me was the cinematography. The colour palette used enhanced the story in so many ways and helped convey the atmosphere of the film. I noticed how well each shot was composed, the movement of the camera was fluid and un-obtrusive and kept with the rhythm of the film. The film was softly lit and naturalistic and made everything appear subdued yet colourful at the same time. 

Hindsight

I watched Vertigo last night and I found it really interesting watching it knowing what's going to happen. You pick up visual clues that you may have missed the first time around and you also interpret characters actions or words differently. I'll get back to Vertigo in a moment, but this just reminded me of a short film that we watched in the film screening class which I hadn't consciously planned to talk about...

We were discussing surprise and suspense in films and the differences between the two - surprise in film is the unexpected twist that is the highlight of the story and About A Girl certainly featured a surprise. You can watch it online here, the brief summary of it is:

As a girl related stories about her ordinary teenage life, there is an uncomfortable sense of sadness underlying her easygoing tales.

Directed by Brian Percival, it's the monologue of a 13 year-old girl. Speaking directly to the camera as she walks through the backstreets of an English town, she starts out talking about trivial things in her life, her unrealistic dreams of becoming a famous singer and random anecdotes. This is inter-cut with footage from her life from an objective point of view, so we gain insight into her life with her parents and her friends. She draws the audience in through her personality, we laugh at the things she says in her strong accent and pass off her seemingly naïve comments as things all young people say.  


Hand-held camera is used which keeps the visual rhythm constant and flowing with the dialogue and her movement. For shots of significance and emotional impact a steady cam is used and her monologue stops, which is jarring and completely changes the pace of the film. It gives these scenes more impact, not only because of the narrative aspect, but also because stylistically they completely contrast with the flow of the rest of the film.

There is a mounting sense of disquieting sadness leading up to the surprise moment which was completely and utterly unexpected, confronting and forces you to re-think the whole film. Re-watching it with the ending in mind we became aware of the clues leading up to the twist, everything the girl said had a much deeper meaning and we no longer passed small comments off as unimportant. This made her story all the more tragic and made me understand and appreciate the excellent filmmaking that went in to it.

Maybe I’m an unobservant audience member if I miss out on some hints while watching a film. However I prefer to think that re-watching films adds depth to them because you’re no longer watching them just to see where the narrative goes – you’re watching to see how it gets there. Hindsight basically.

And now back to Vertigo…

The first thing I thought whilst watching it last night was how little James Stewart had changed in 18 years since The Shop Around the Corner (1940) which we watched only a couple of weeks ago. I’m not unfamiliar with his work but I don’t think I’ve watched anything with him in such quick succession before, which really made this obvious to me. 

Vertigo gets better with each viewing and you’re able to focus on the characters and the themes of the film such as obsession, love and manipulation and begin to appreciate what a unique masterpiece it is. We don’t entirely miss these things the first time, it’s just that our main focus is following the intricate narrative. I found it a more disturbing story this time with Elster completely using Scotty in the elaborate murder of his wife, Scotty becoming obsessed with Madeleine and after her death imagining that he sees her everywhere. He then forces Judy to undergo a makeover so that she becomes Madeleine. Judy also first agreed to pretend to be Madeleine for Elster and then did the same for Scotty in the hope that it would make him love her. 

I also noticed stylistic elements that were used to help convey the narrative, such as the use of light – especially the scene in which Scotty and Midge visit Pop Leibel, where it suddenly becomes very dark as he tells them of Carlotta Valdes and only lightens again when they leave the shop. The setting plays a big part in the film and San Francisco is more of a character itself than just a backdrop to the story.

The use of camera is another element that Hitchcock always uses to brilliant effect, it is obvious that each angle and frame is so well thought out to serve a specific purpose to the film and each shot is composed so effectively. 

Reading about Vertigo afterwards, I found this interesting piece of trivia on IMDb:

Uncredited second-unit cameraman Irmin Roberts invented the famous "zoom out and track in" shot (now sometimes called "contra-zoom" or "trombone shot") to convey the sense of vertigo to the audience.

This is a really interesting technique and one that has been used many times since. I can still remember when I figured out how to re-create that technique (playing with a digital camera while in the car). One thing I love about watching classic films, is that you’re seeing techniques the first time that they’ve ever been done, things we might think of as neat camera tricks but don’t give second thought to were invented by second-unit cameramen over 50 years ago!

Time-lapse

 Wow. I just watched this video Room with a view: 1 year of timelapses from hotel windows featuring footage of a years worth of time-lapse photos in different locations around the world. Being an excellent photographer, each shot is composed so beautifully that the images would work well as individual photographs.. but look amazing when combined. 
  Time-lapse photography is something that interests me, but it's not something that I ever really think about - but now having seen this, I want to do something similar, even though I don't think it would turn out quite as spectacularly.
  
It is a cinematography technique, according to Wikipedia, whereby the frequency at which film frames are captured (the frame rate) is much lower than that which will be used to play the sequence back. When replayed at normal speed, time appears to be moving faster and thus lapsing.  
It captures events which change slowly or in a subtle way over time and allows for these things to become more obvious - like day turning to night, tides changing, clouds moving across the sky, seasons changing, plants growing and so on..  Looking at these sequences from a photographic perspective, it is a great way of showing how light changes over the course of a day and how the angles of the sun and the colour of the light change. 

When used within a film, for example as a short sequence, it would be a stylistic element of film form, used to show the passing of time within the narrative. If I recall correctly, it was used in Adaptation (2002) and possibly Planet Earth (2006), I'm sure I've seen it in other films, so I'll have to do a bit more searching... 

Narrative Form

We started last week by discussing narrative form which is the structure of a story and the way in which it is told in a film. The audience derive meaning from the story through things such as their experiences and knowledge of previous texts (such as films, books or art).

It was brought to my attention (this may reveal my ignorance..) that there is a difference between story and plot:  

a story is made up of inferred events and explicitly presented events; the plot includes explicitly presented events as well as non-diegetic elements.

The thing that stood out to me was how the story goes beyond the plot in suggesting events which are never seen (ie. inferred events) but are still vital to the story. This is something that we do every time we watch a film, but something which we’re not aware of doing or at least for me it’s something that I never put much thought into.

So watching the introduction of Hitchcock’s North by Northwest with this knowledge in mind made it quite interesting to see just how many small things we pick up on, make connections to and then draw conclusions from. The music creates a hectic atmosphere and its combination with the images of crowds, congested traffic and sky scrapers leads us to believe that it is rush hour in the city. Roger Thornhill enters dictating a memo to a woman – we realise that this is his secretary and he is a successful and busy executive, and we assume inferred events, for example the dictation began in an office and then the two made their way to the foyer where we first see them.  I think it’s fascinating the things we’ve assumed from just a few moments into the beginning of a film.

On a side note – re-watching the titles of North by Northwest reminded me somewhat of the titles of Mad Men which I’ve just started watching (yes, I am slightly behind) and will probably post about it when I’ve seen a few more episodes, but I’m loving it so far! 

Sunrise

As part of my film course at uni, we have to create a blog and update it each week with our thoughts on what we watched or discussed, as well as other things that we've found that may have inspired us in some way... I found the template of the uni blog site thing a bit vapid, so decided to create a lovely alternate blog here...

So the first film that we watched last week was a silent film called 'Sunrise - A Song of Two Humans' (1927).

‘This song of the Man and his Wife is of no place and every place; you might hear it anywhere, at any time. For wherever the sun rises and sets, in the city’s turmoil or under the open sky on a farm, life is much the same; sometimes bitter, sometimes sweet.’

Thus reads the first title cards of the silent film directed by F.W. Murnau. These are used to introduce the characters to the audience and the premise of the film. After the opening they are seldom used (because apparently Murnau disliked using them) therefore allowing the other elements of the film to convey the narrative. 

‘Sunrise’ worked well without the use of many story cards not only because it is a simple concept to follow, but also because the other elements (music, camera, performance etc.) work so effectively that it easy to keep up with what happens on screen.

The music is very effective in portraying the mood of the film and also to set the pace, emphasising the characters emotions and actions. For example, before the man takes his wife out in the boat his movements are very strained and he looks as if he is literally being weighed down – his shoulders are hunched and his head is bowed down. The music captures this feeling – using a constant and repetitive beat, in a low note to emphasise his emotions and reluctance to do what was planned. The repetition in the music also creates suspense – as it remains constant without building up. This creates a feeling of tension as we know what direction the film is moving in and we want to know whether he will drown his wife and what will happen next.

With all the great technology that exists today, it is sometimes so easy to forget that it wasn’t always the same. When I think about some of the techniques that were used in this film (for example the use of superimposition which was created during the filming process) I feel a stronger sense of respect for the film-makers and am amazed by what they achieved and can understand how it inspired many films after its release. 

And now for something a bit different...

I just saw a link to this video on someone else's blog and have to post it here because it is an excellent piece of editing. It features clips of films from 2010 which doesn't sound like much but is a reminded me how much I love films, or reinforced my love of films!