Beowulf

Okay so, WOW!!!!
This movie was visually staggering!!!!
Between the intimate scenes and the animation, I could not tell what was real and what was fake at some points in the movie!!!!
Okay so, I know, the movie came out like, 2 or 3 months ago, and I haven't been keeping you guys updated. AND I'M SORRY ABOUT IT!!!! But man, does senior year freaking KILL you, if you have a crazy mother, who is like, best friends with one of your teachers.

Anywhos--

So, back to Beowulf.
Alright well, after I saw the movie, I just had to see if there was anything else to the story. Now, I feel stupid admitting this but, I did not know that it was a poem. I know, I know.... how shameful, right? Well, anyways, so, when I got home, well, more like the day or two after, I googlified Beowulf and guess what!? There is like, half of the story missing!!!! I'm so shocked, right? I mean hello, it HOLLYWOOD!, Captain Obvious! But still, I mean, if you are going to take something so monumental, at least tell the whole damn story, right? I mean, geez, it's like how the new director is treating Harry Potter. But, we wont go into that right now.
Back to Beowulf -- so, the story was only partially told, and I started to read it, only coming to realize that well, I was not that interested in the story. maybe because I was reading a terrible translation into English? I don't know. However, if you want something visually and sensually stimulating, you must see Beowulf.
Although, I don't think that any theatres are showing it anymore.... okay so scratch that - you will just have to wait for it to come out on DVD in a few more months.
So, until next time--

Godfather Series

Alright, so I FINALLY got to see the third Godfather!!!!
My sister got the set for my dad on his birthday.... it took us like, 2 and half months to see all three. LOL

I thought that the first and third were the best out of the series. The second one seemed to have jumped around so much, that I lost myself a couple of times, trying to figure some stuff out. The first one was amazing!!!!

--grainy texture to the film, the variety of actors, the clothes, the props, and of course, the locations. Everything just went together so well.

The third was amazing as well, since Al Pacino was at the top of his game. The second was made beautifully, just like the first, but the story jumped around so much, it often takes a few minutes (sometimes when it went back to the original event) to realize what is going on. Granted, there are other movies out there that are similar, but they are not a part of a series.

Francis Ford Coppola did a wonderful job with all three movies in the series, but I think that when the second was being made, something must have happened to Coppola that altered his perspective of his baby (the films).

However, I think that my perspective on critique has gone [literally] to the dogs with my A.P. Literature class. Not that I hate the teacher, but now, I am seeing things differently than I used to, and well, frankly, I don't really enjoy my new outlook on things. I am reading too much into things that are not that deep. Well, anywho, if I remember anything else about this amazing series, I will edit this post.

So, until next time--

Seven Samurai vs. Magnificent Seven

     In the Seven Samurai and the Magnificent Seven, there are a lot of similarities, but also a lot of differences. The Magnificent Seven was made after the Seven Samurai, and was even a sort of tribute to the Seven Samurai. For the first thing, and foremost, the most extreme difference that is noticeable, is that the Seven Samurai is in black-and-white, and it is placed in a small town in Japan, where the villagers are farmers. The Magnificent Seven is based in a small town in Mexico, and a small town in Texas, right across the border from each other.


     The biggest similarity is the plot of both films. There is a town/village of farmers that keep getting raided or pushed around by bullies, who want food. After so much time, then the villagers get extremely agitated with the bandits, so they decided to ask the highest respected person in the village. In Seven Samurai, they ask “Grandfather” what they should do, and it is decided that they should go into town, the main area, to find samurai....7 of them. Then, with the Mexican village, they ask the wise old man who lives near the village what they should do. He tells them they need to fight. But, that they need cowboys. Both of the men that are the ‘advisers’ give them their own monetary to try to buy the fighters that they need to help the village.


     The costumes that the 'seven' wear in each film, resemble each other, again, as most other things. However, you can see how the 'sevens'' costumes have slightly different fabrics, or colours, so that, to an outside person, they may seem normal, but when inside their respectable villages, they stand out.


     A crucial difference in these movies is that Akira Kurosawa, the director of the Seven Samurai, likes to focus on the people. Everyone of his shots is preplanned and thought out, with the influence of the other shots and the audience in mind. With Seven Samurai being in black-and-white, the emotions and shadows, what is being depicted in the film, stands out more. It is more noticeable, as well as held to a higher degree. The shots mainly focus on what is going on and what is helping move the film along in the plot, setting, and story. The Magnificent Seven has a lot of amateur shots that don’t really focus on the emotion and action of each scene. It is a bit agitating watching the film, comparing it to Seven Samurai, shot-wise, because, even though Magnificent Seven was shot in colour, there are specific spots where you can see that the director or cameraman wasn’t being as intimate with the movie and scene as Kurosawa always was. Some shots are also unfocused or unclear.


     If you pay close enough attention to the music playing, you will hear that there is one particular section of a song that is very similar, if not the same exact selection, that is played in each of the movies. It is not played at the same time; however, you will recognize it when you hear it. It is more of a traditional sounding song, but it is used to show that something big is about to happen. That a huge scene is coming up right next. In both of the films, horses are used. Which is pretty interesting because in Magnificent Seven, it is basically a ‘cowboy’ or old western movie so they have the saddles and all of the proper equipment that is used to ride a horse, whereas in Seven Samurai, they don’t really have much material or equipment to use to ride a horse. Even though both of the villages, the Japanese and the Mexican villages, are farming villages, they do not have much to eat.


     The camera shots that are in both of the films are on the completely opposite scale. The Magnificent Seven has a bunch of out of focus shots that really has not much to do with helping to move the film along. The Seven Samurai has a bunch of intimate, intense shots to put the shots and scenes to the front of the film and make sure that you remember them. To pull you into the film so that you are a part of it, and so that you can understand and realize the significance of the film. However, it is understandable in some senses, as Magnificent Seven is an offshoot of Seven Samurai.


     So, until next time--

Final Exam

Monsters perform many functions in movies. Please write an essay on how Del Toro treats the creation of monsters in his movies "The Devil's Backbone" and "Pan's Labyrinth." Support your argument with examples of how teh cinematographer's craft was used to support this principle.

     This is the prompt for our cinematography final. And this is my essay for our cinematography final:


     Del Toro uses monsters to convey the conception of imagination and difference in hi movies. In "The Devil's Backbone", he uses the 'monster', Santi, a prior occupant of the orphanage to show how messed up the older guy, Jacinto had become, from his days at the orphanage. There is a sense of imagination because Carlos, the new-comer, at first believes he only sees something that is not real. But then, this imagination turns into a remedy. Which is exactly what Del Toro wanted. Similarly to how Akira Kurosawa places every single strand of hair into place for a close-up shot, Del Toro does this, but with the mechanics and emotions of the characters of his stories. In doing this, Del Toro is able to let his 'monsters' perform the function of telling the story themselves. Rather than the story being about how the monster affects other people, it is simply about the monster and how they became what they are.


     Del Toro simply wanted to tell a story through his 'monsters'. In order to do this, he had to make his two films, "The Devil's Backbone" and "Pan's Labyrinth", seem demonic and dark. He used different cinematographic elements in order to achieve this. Del Toro uses; dim lighting , costuming and make-up is heavily used for all of the characters, specific props to certain scenes, and the attention to the periods. The plot of both films tie into each other. Del Toro says that "Pan's Labyrinth" is a continuation of sorts to "The Devil's Backbone". The dim lighting used throughout both films plays on the plots and emotions of the characters. It helps to (conceptually) highlight the motions of the actors as you follow them through the scenes of the films, but not playing favourite to any particular portion of the frame. Whether this was originally Del Toro 's concept or perception of "El Espinazo del Diablo", is debatable, but since it ended up being the vision of "El Laberinto del Fauno", it is accepted.


     The costuming and make-up used and needed for all the creatures in "El Laberinto del Fauno (Pan's Labyrinth)" was a great amount and no doubt most of the $19 million budget was spent on that and the elaborate sets. However, in comparison to "El Espinazo del Diablo (The Devil's Backbone)'s" $4.5 million budget, that was smaller because of the lacking need for complicated sets and costumes, both films still have sets of comparable value. Though the latter set of sets may look like they cost nothing, it is quite possible that they were what cost so much. But having made the film iin an isolated area, Del Toro was able to use long shots of the surroundings and the building(s) to show how and why the 'monster', Santi felt.


     In reference to the props, in both films, the different things sitting around, and again, props that were part of the costume were, of course again, part of the time period; along with helping set the stage for the monsters and the whole concept of imagination Del Toro wanted. Having only seen the first one and hearing about the second from others, I can not compare them as well as I should be able to, however, I am pretty sure that the introductions also help to set the stage for the monsters and get the wheels in your mind turning. The introduction for Devil's Backbone most certainly does, which also plays on the mechanics and emotions Del Toro wants his audience to feel.


     I hope this gets me an A, because I sure do need it. :-D    LOL ((and yes, I am going to keep my blog up))


     So, until next time--

Airplane

     This movie was originally made in late 1979. (released mid 1980). Obviously everyone wore the typical disco outfits of the time period; however, there were different characters who had certain costumes on because of the different scenerios that were happening. It is a comedy/romance and I highly recomend it. There are many wonderful uses of transitions throughout the film, allowing for more imagination to happen. Special effects are not needed for the most part, although are used. Most things, are not so much as "special" effects as just effects, where you can see how/where/what is being used which in some peoples minds makes it special. However, this just makes the film more enjoyable.


     It is rated PG despite some nudity, and sexual references. There is many different forms of jokes in this film, which are impossible to catch in one sitting.


     There are flash back in where the characters are outside, and the colours are neutral, and everything is bright. In comparsion to when the characters are inside the plane:
the lighting is dim, the clothing, though many different colours, is very gloomy looking and plain. This helps with the plot, so that the focus is on the dialogue, and not the surroundings or other things going on. Many of the jokes have nothing to do with the plot, and are thrown in there, deviating you from what is supposed to be going on. However, it adds to some of the elements Jim Abrahams,David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker tried to use.


     So, until next time--

O, Brother Where Art Thou?

     This movie was based on 'The Odyssey' by Homer. You can see the similarities of the story in this movie. But, 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' has it's own story line in there, too. The entire movie is in black and white but because of the colourful language and actions, the movie seems to have colour. But, the comparisons of 'The Odyssey' and 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' are very similar.


     Most of the characters are recognizable if you have read the book. Cyclops, in this movie, is a 'bible salesman' who is really a part of the KKK and is helping to catch these three men who have escaped from jail. The journey for the main character in this movie, is finding his wife before he loses her. While he, Uylsses, was in jail, she, his wife wrote to him that she was going to get remarried. He told the other two men he was chained to that there is a hidden fortune. When he finds her, she has even turned their eldest daughters against him.


     There is also the rivalry of two men who are running to be governor of the town. Then there is the fact of another character the "devil", who is trying to catch the three runaways. They become famous because of this one song they sing on the radio to get some money. The main character, Ulysses Everett McGill, is now wanted back by his wife.


     The Sirens of this film, are three ladies who are singing and cleaning clothes, and turn Pete into the police and the "devil". Delmar thinks that they had turned him in a frog, showing a slight talent of Circe. The two men left, Ulysses and Delmar, to go into
town. They then find out that Pete is back in jail. There is also the prophet, a man who is pushing a railroad cart. They go through their adventures and in the end, they end up in doing what they all wanted. With everything they have wanted for the past few years they were locked away.


     Throughout the movie, Pete has "the itch" to be saved. At the end of the movie, there is a huge flood and they all pray to Gd to be saved. Therefore, they are all saved when the valley, where Ulysses had lived before being in jail, floods. Before the valley actually floods, "the devil" and all his men (the police) are there, to hang these three men. However, as soon as they pop up from under the water, Ulysses denies that he was praying to "G-d", and says that the valley was supposed to be flooded all along. There is a lot of hubris action in this movie, with the governors competing, Ulysses for his wife, and the men hunting for the treasure.


     This movie has humour, tragedy, and hubris in it. It really shows off a more modern day version of 'The Odyssey'. It also has some practical elements in it where Ulysses, is a 'Dapper Dan Man'. Yet, this movie is not just a family film but one also for a more mature and appreciative audience. Mostly, I can find rhetoric devices through out this film and relate more to it with my teachings from Advanced Placement English Language and Composition that I took this year. I guess I will have to dig deeper for cinematographic elements. Seeing however, as I was asked to find the similarities in "The Odessy" and "O, Brother Where Art Thou", this shouldn't be a problem.


     So, until next time--

Yojimbo/The Bodyguard

     This review is a bit different from what I normally write; however, I was not able to see the entire film, and was stuck up to the ending point you will get to. Hopefully I will be able to see it over the summer and will be able to post a 'Part two' review of it. Much of this review may seem like the retelling of the story but, I had been typing while watching, hence the reason for the different writing style. Enjoy! :-D


     The samurai picked up a stick and threw it in the air. It pointed in on direction of the road and he walked around the stick, as if the stick was leading him to his destiny. He then comes across a father and son fighting at their house. It is unfourunate though, that when he is allowed a drink of water, the father, who has just unfortunately lost his son thinks of him as a beggar or stealer. Shots of people looking out their windows at him gives the impression of fear. Then, a dog walks down the road with a hand in his mouth and a happy beat is sounded, because the dog has something to eat. However, it is not so happy for the person whose hand it is. It is quite unfortunate. The same music is played when a man quickly comes out and approaches him and offers him a deal, and is excited. The samurai is still just somber in his stance. The man thinks he is scared but he is just hungry. Unsi-Tori is a wild pig according to his name and Sukasa bangs his prayer drum all day in hope that Unsi-Tora, Unsi-Tori's brother, the good guy,will win. The humour in this movie, even though only 15 minutes into it, is already picking up, and very dark. It is very catchy and interesting.


     The shot of the samurai walking down the middle of the town is similar to that of western films, as with the music playing with the shot. For whatever reason, he keeps his arms folded in his jacket constantly. It is also funny that they show him their tattoos, when they want to fight him because he ends up killing him, cutting off the body parts that have the tattoos on it. He then tells the copper of the need for more coffins, and the music is played again. The lighting in this movie is hard to differentiate because most of the shots are lit throughout the scene. It is odd, though that when the men sit, or stand a certain way, their undershorts show.


     With the samurai's host being as greedy as he can be, they try to fight Ushi-Tori's men, He ends up turning them down and climbing a ladder to watch the fight for amusement. Which is amusing to me. The fact that both sides go towards each other than back off one by one is also adding to the humour. The shot from the ground of the samurai sitting on the tower and the two sides just feet away from each other, swords pointed/aimed, is my favourite. They must then act as if nothing happened because of an official inspection. S, they all pretend to get along fine. It is quite hilarious.


     Now, we can finally see some different lighting, focused on the actors, since there are only two in the shot. You can see the light shining off of the old man's forehead, highlighting his wrinkles, aging him more. In reality, it doesn't seem as if he would be that old, though. Here now, the same music as from before when the dog had the hand is being replayed, while they observe another's actions towards one of higher ranking, as if the music is acting as our insight to their minds and their amusement.


     Hopefully I can see the rest, as I said before. Keep an eye out for a part two review from me on this film. So, until next time--

Dreams by Akra Kurosawa

III: The Blizzard


     The portrayal of man against nature. Which isn’t like any of the other dreams. There is a group of men who are hiking up a mountain. Nature, which is represented by a snow storm demon, is just telling the man to take it easy and freeze to death, to die. But he is struggling and trying to make it to camp. The scene is quite dark with snow billowing all around these four men. There is also a part where it gets really bad and the snow almost seems black. I don’t recall much music or effects in this segment. However, when the main character is laying in the snow, the snow storm demon, who is a beautiful lady, is covering him with ‘blankets’ which is actually snow. The themes and elements of this particular version of the story isn’t like any of the others. Others do have demons which seems to be the only similarity. The shots are mainly medium shots of everyone. The end, the sun comes out and everything is bright and happy, etc.

So, until next time--

4:17-4:42

     so, I can't sleep anymore tonight.

     i kept waking up, since like, 3.


     I have a lot of things on my mind right now I guess. One main one being that I may pretty soon lose another Grandma. I have more than two because of step and half and what-not. Pretty big family. This one is directly blood, though. As was the other one. So now, once she dies, I will only have one blood grandma left. I may be confusing some people but, it makes sense to me. Anywho. See, this Grandma, she has two different kinds of cancer. Breast cancer and now lung cancer, which is new. She's had breast cancer for years, shes a survivour. But it runs in the family. I'm at risk for it. And she has refused treatment since she was first diagnosed because she is stubborn, which I get from all over the place. And, she is taking care of my Down Syndrome aunt. Who is 40. And still doing well. But when she goes, my aunt will have no one. So, St. Patty's Day's weekend we all helped move her down from West Palm to a place called the Shamrock. Ironic, isn't it? Now, the majority of our family lives, not only in South Florida, in Broward County. ::sigh::


     Many people don't know that Down Syndrome also runs in my family. This all on my dad's side, by the way. And everytime people make jokes about "retards", I just want to strangle them. It really pisses me off that people don't understand that it isn't that persons fault. Yes, I used to make fun of them. However, I was younger and didn't understand it, even though I knew my aunt had it. Now, my cousin, from my Uncle, the only other boy this Grandma had, is Down Syndrome too. She however, got diagnosed when they were living over in Germany, not when she was born, like my aunt. It's all an internal thing, that can't be controlled. I just don't know when people don't understand that.


     It makes THEM looks like the retards.


     I'm not quite sure why I'm harping on this, nor why it's at the forefront of my mind. I guess it's just that, the next person, past my Aunt Debbie to take care of my aunt would be my parents. Now mind you, it's going from eldest down, minus my uncle who lives in Chicago. It's not that I don't want her living here, however, we aren't exactly financially stable right now. I am paying for most of my own things except clothes right now. I am contributing to buying my food, as I have been for awhile, I buy my own clothes sometimes, too. I pay anything I owe. See, I do have a job.


     But oh boy, was yesterday a trip!


     Whoa, sounded ghetto there for nanosecond.


     There are now new rules I have to go by and such, which irritates me to the utmost. I am being restricted and given more duties. Basically my entire day has changed. Granted, I have not worked for three weeks on a Sunday because I have had so much going on, however, for them to make new rules and regulations, only on sundays, in only my area, where only I work, is just.... rude. What the hell did I do? Did I do something wrong? If so, please tell me! Don't just change that schedule on me and expect me to conform. You can't change the animals diets on them because you feel like it!


     When I feed the iguanas yesterday, they were ravenous!


     Like they hadn't eaten in about a week! Same with one of the turtles we have. And the opossum. And, she gets feed everyday!
That's not normal, nor right. I don't like it. At. all.


     It is just not cool.


     So, I am just about thinking of quiting my job. However, all day, I was saying to myself, even though I love the animals, they are pushing it too far. But when I saw how Wilma, the opossum and Freckles, one of the iguanas was eating, [trying before I even put their bowls down!] I know that I need to stick it out for them.


     So, until next time--

Dreams by Akra Kurosawa

II: The Peach Orchards

    The girl that the little boy thought that he saw was a messenger. She was a tree spirit, but she had a message to deliver for the other Peach Orchard tree spirits to the little boy and his family. Because it was "doll day", to celebrate the Peach Orchards. But, since they had been chopped down by the little boys family, they sent the messenger to his house. After much thought, they allowed him to see them in bloom again. They danced, made music, and sung. As a way of the trees being made, in a quicker pace. All of which hypnotized the little boy. But then, he went up into them, after seeing the girl again. All of a sudden, the trees disappear, and you only see the stumps. The dolls, inside the house, and the spirits were on different levels, just as a tree is. He then saw a small, little tree in bloom, which represented the little girl. Because she was a younger generation of the spirits, but still one, she was on the level of what she would eventually become, as a new, sprouting tree, showing hope. The little boy hadn't wanted his family to cut down the orchard in the first place, but ended up not being heard because in the Japanese culture, young children do not defy their elders.


    I'm sorry if my review is a bit mixed up, and/or all over the place but, I got everything done and it's good!


    So, until next time--

Dreams by Akra Kurosawa

I: Sunshine Through the Rain

     For some odd reason, the curiosity of the little boy over takes his mother's warning. Kurosawa's dream seems to be a warning to himself that he is about to have a major change happen in his life. The fox people are holding a wedding precession in the middle of the forest, just after the rainstorm, and the little boy is caught watching them. Something that is forbidden. In the tradition of the fox people, he is supposed to kill himself, and is not allowed back inside his home. The symbolism of the huge doors to enter the home area show how the Japanese people are forced to live in isolation. When the boy is walking through the field of flowers, the vivid colouration shows the beauty of life, and because of the task he has of killing himself or finding the fox people, it is important to understand that he robbed his own life of beauty. The use of masks in this short, as in the same as in Kurosawa's 'Throne of Blood' helps the fox people to keep the same expression, a highly steady, or serious, one. The child's walk through the flowers works in the last scene, mixed with the mountains, shows how death is looming over his head.

     This dream has a connection with the story of Adam and Eve in the Christian bible, Beauty and the Beast, an American children's movie, and the story of Peter Pan. The way it connects to Adam and Eve is because of the curiosity the little boy has, is just like Eve's curiosity in what the apple tastes like. After she tastes the apple/after he sees the fox people, she must go through the pain of child birth/he must go through the act of killing himself. It is similar to the Beauty and the Beast, in the sense of the little boy being the place of Belle, venturing into an area that shouldn't be travelled in, and the discovery of something that isn't supposed to be there. Though, there are not really many consequences in 'the Beauty and the Beast', but the exposure of an odd beauty that is not normally seen. In the case of the little boy, the fox people. The way it is similar to Peter Pan is how, because he is so young, he shouldn't grow up, and Peter Pan, because he is older, has to grow up, and because of his actions, the little boy is forced to grow up, by performing the act of killing himself. Another story that 'Sunshine Through the Rain' is similar to, is the story of Pandora, an her box of secrets in the world. When Pandora opens her box, she realizes so many different things, horrible things, happy things, but she managed to close the box in time to save one last thing for safe keeping; hope. The little boy has unleashed something he shouldn't have; the anger of the fox people unto himself.
Next short, II: The Peach Orchids, will be tomorrow. I think. And hope.


     So, until next time--

ABC's of Chinese Cinema vs. American Cinema

Aspiring/Assonite
Beauty/Big Bang
Close-Ups/Carefulness
Delicacy/Daring
Effects=colouration/graphics
Fast paced=action/sex
Graphics are numerous in both forms of Cinema, and extremely beautiful:
-fake blood
-computer graphics
Horrible translationsinto English/Horrible plots
Indirectly, both are completely involved with each other, it's Just that it sometimes, as horrible as most American films are now, some of the Cinese films made are just as bad, or almost there. But, it's OK in a sense, because of their use of cinematographic eLements.
Many differences:
Newer ideas/No change in pace, usually the same stuff.
Old themes, old tales to be told/Only for entertainment(mostly)
Payment to the actors is very different, Queerly though, or maybe not so much, Replicas in cinema are used so much, and so well, that it is possible to actually by many on the internet now. However, most of the replicas used in chinese cinema are from a Story, or a Tale from centuries ago, in which a great legend is known about the artifact. There are American films however, that are based on lengends, and stories, in which the plot revolves around. However, most of the time, in American Cinema, films seem to follow the same plot/story line over and over again, and the true plot gets lost or has gotten lost over the years and times it has been repeated. Thus, many people cannot Understand why tradition is Virtuously being brought into American Cinema.
Why is it though, that Americans don't seem to apperciate films that are worthy of praise when they put those same films down?
But yet, X rated films don't seem to be put down. Then again, that is another conversation for another day....
You can fill out your own alphabet if you want, because I believe that I am done here. Although, I may be falling asle....ZZZZZZZZZZZZ....
Sorry about that.... long day. As I was saying:
Cinema in general just doesn't get appreciated that way it should anymore, so please take out the time and try to.


     So, until next time--

Some Like it Hot

     A classic, made in 1959, starring Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon. Curtis and Lemmon pose as women in the movie (not as a drag queens, just dressing as women) because they were witness to a big-time murder back home, in Chicago. The film is in black and white, as it was originally made, though the cover has a shot of these three joksters in colour. But with the film being in black and white, it is easier to see differences in lighting and some other elements throughout. One major lighting choice that kept catching this viewers eye wasevery time the lighting was on Marilyn Monroe, it was so soft, to make her look almost like an angel, where as on any other person in the film, even other women, it was the same, dull, boring lighting that was used on the men. The main reason this was done was because she was the star of the movie and this was one of the few ways to [literally] illuminate her amongst the rest of the cast. Because of the time period, the costuming is very wonderful.


     The actors and actresses are constantly in different outfits, throughout the film. You even have scenes of the actors changing because of the fact that two of the main characters are actually men and having to pose as women, because this is one of the only ways they can hide. Some of the outfits Monroe wears however, look quite unconventional because of the fact that the top portion of it is merely mesh with just a little bit of sparkles and fabric covering up her breasts. It is quite interesting however, because one of the actors goes from man to woman to man in his costuming. It is quitehilarious, as well. This is film is a comedy, but it is most definately not the first time I have had the pleasure of viewing it.


     So, until next time--

Mojave Mirage

The film is about all the different people this phone booth brings together and how they are all able to just be normal with each other because they all just want to talk on this disgustingly cool phone.
They made this film to show how it brings the people together just so they can say they have been to the phone booth and to have been a part of something that is known world wide.

Laughing Club

     The main theme in this film shows modernism but still traditional at the same time. How the city of Bombay has a lot of adverstisments of new things like technology, cell phones, hair products, etc. Then you see some shots of people carring baskets on their heads, traditional clothing. Then a second later you see cars driving around. So, it shows you the contrast and similarity of the modern and traditional aspects of the area. And with the laughing, it is sort of a silly thing and yet you see the peole, dressed for work, and in the traditional clothing.

     With the laughter club, it allows you to express any fear or sorrow yo had/have. In the film, it has people telling their stories, in intimate settings, telling how life is hard for them, how they have to live, the workplace, tension, all the things that bother them, and they are told to just laugh by Dr. Kataria.

     Dr. Kataria was the founder of The Laughing Club because he saw in Reader’s Digest an article about how laugher is the best medicine, so he fiigured, that is a much easier way to medicate someone, without payment.

     The way the film goes is working people, then children, then old people. How that protrays the compression of the city. As well as how the stories with so many eople living together, 14-15 people living in one room. The shadows with that story is very dim, early morning, almost like inside of a cave because of the gloomy set up they have. And then how most of the story was in natural lighting.

     As it is easy to tell because of the immense shadows in the film, and how dark it is in some of the shots. Then the interveiw with the Doctor, on the beach, the lightness of that portion of the film, and how the sun hits him from the side, and it doesn’t seem dark or gloomy for a second.

     However, the whole purpose of the Laughing Club is for people to be able to meet others, to find something that is similar between them is laughing. I’m pretty sure that sentence jsut didn’t make sense to you but, oh well!

     So, until next time--

Why can't we be a family again?

     This is yet another documentary, which is also based in New York. There are a couple of shots that are from the feet up, or of just the legs, which are pretty cool. The shots are of people dancing, walking, kind of like to show that they are higher than others because they are working hard to no tbe pulled down. The people in the shots are of kids that have some problems with their families. There is one shot when the mom and her mother and grandmother are sitting there, and one of the lights is shining brightly in the middle of the shot. It looks kind of like you are looking at things through a drug ged up haze. There is another great shot of the mother, Kitten, crying, after both of her kids telling her and letting her know that they are disappointed in her. This segment was about emotions felt. From the shots and lighting used, and the story that's told, this is conveyed.


     So, until next time--

Lucy Tsak Tsak

     This is another documentary about a lady who is the "slate clapper" for films. There are a lot of miscellanious shots from various films showing her clapping the slate. A lot of the shots were angled, which is a little odd, but, it adds to the randomness of this documentary. There is a variety of lighting throughout this film, and all other elements of cinematography are virtually thrown out the window for this short film.


     This review probably doesn't make sense to you but, it does explain completely the documentary, Lucy Tsak Tsak, which is what Lucy caclls the clap board.


     So, until next time--

The Sunshine Hotel

     This film is a documentary about a place that houses many different people. The film itself has a very grainy texture to it but, seeing as most of the things in the film just seem dirty, and there is vulgar language throughout the film, it makes sense as towht they would make it so grainy. It adds an element to highlight all this nastiness happening in our world. There are a lot of different kinds of people that are also highlighted in the film. One that stood out to me was the drag queen. This film is placed in New York, where the Sunshine Hotel is located. At the end of the film, there atour guide that is showing middle-class people the hotel and there are shots of all the occupants closing the windows, as if in shame of living there.


     There is a variety of lighting techniques that are used in the film, along with shots, costuming (which the people wore themselves), and of course, the people themselves. I would dare to state that this is acontroversial film because of the fact that the director decided to elicit attention to the Sunshine Hotel. There is not much else that could really be said about this film, other than that as a documentary, it
could also be classified as adocu-drama.


     So, until next time--

El espinazo del diablo

     El espinazo del diablo es asombroso cine. That translates to: 'The Devil's Backbone was an amazing movie.' And, it truly was. But as before, as many of our movies seem to have been, originated in another language, this time, Español, or spanish. The name 'Devil's Backbone' is revealed in the movie as a disease that fetuses have, forcing them to be still-born. The movie is based during the Spanish war, and in placed in an orphanage.


     The costuming during the film generally stays the same throughout, since the boys live at an orphanage, and there is no way for them to get any new clothing. There is some change in clothing, but it is very minimal. In the sense of clothing and special effects (to a degree) the lady who runs the orphanage lost a leg, and has an attachment, which is seen being taken off and put on. Since the movie is based in previous times, before the prosthetics we know of, she has a make-shift one, most likely made by the doctor who helps her run the orphanage. This doctor also has authentic tools from the same time era, and as far as the other props go, it was most definitely obvious of the time period, if not a little unclear. There are a lot of antiques (what would now be considered) that are shown throughout the film, including the costuming.


     Guillermo del Toro, the director and writer of the film, seems to love shots that easily showed different emotions that actor is trying to portray. With it being a foreign film, one many have to watch it many times in order to see all of the different selections used. There are a variety of shots depicting emotions, with the hands and arms, but also many close-up shots of the face, showing the different expressions. One of the reasons there are a lot of shots showing hands is because of the doctor, and they show him working on people, wringing his hands, or of doing some other action. It is also surprising, the amount of long shots used, but at the same time, it makes sense that they would try to show just how barren and empty and alone that the orphanage is out in Spain.


     There is also a huge bank of shots showing different ways that everything in the film was lit. In the hallways, there are lighted sections, rather than the entire hall, to show again, the barrenness. It looks like there is a lot of natural lighting used throughout the film, however, it is also evident by the colouration of the lighting that some is artificial to highlight some of the items in the frame. There are also scenes with rain and smoke from cigarettes that are highly contrasted to show the elements in comparison to the rest of the shot(s). Also, when the 'new kid' is left at the orphanage, and he is laying on his bed, the 'moonlight' that washes over him is obviously a lot more light than the moon would normally give so again, more artificial light was used in similar shots as that.


     There seems to also be a fascination in this film with special effects. Near the end, the man who is trying to take over is hit, and his eye gets all bloody. This is an extreme effect that kept drawing my attention, which highlighted his expressions when he was talking, after he got hit. Some more effects were when Santi, the boy who got killed, como mostrar es un fantasma. There is blood seeping from his head, flowing upwards, into the air, and the make-up on Junio Valverde, the actor who plays Santi, shows cracks on his face, and caked blood all over the place. There are also clots of blood on the sides of everyone's face or somewhere on their body at one point during the film which looks like a slug/slugs, so it is obvious that there was some fault in things. Santi is a ghost in the film, and in the beginning and end, the same monologue is told by the doctor (as a voice over), as if he is telling the story, since he himself becomes un fantasma (a ghost) near the end. The monologue is as follows;
Spanish--¿Cuál es un fantasma? ¿Una tragedia condenada para repetirse repetidamente? Un instante del dolor, quizás. Algo muerto que todavía se parece estar vivo. Una emoción suspendió a tiempo. Como una fotografía velada. Como un insecto atrapado en ámbar.
English--What is a ghost? A tragedy condemned to repeat itself time and again? An instant of pain, perhaps. Something dead which still seems to be alive. An emotion suspended in time. Like a blurred photograph. Like an insect trapped in amber.


     There is also a lot of vulgar language and content throughout the film, adding to the reason why it was rated R, besides all of the violence. There is also some parts of the film where ties are being crossed in the people's lives throughout the film.


     A couple of interesting things about the movie are that 1) a lot of the film was inspired by Alfred Hitchock's image duality in his films, 2)Del Toro called Pan's Labyrinth a sequel in spirit to this film, which he also directed. It makes sense that there would be a
sequel' to this, considering that he also directed Hellboy and Hellboy 2, set to be released in 2008. Alright well, I think that is the best review I have ever written, but it makes me happy because this is such a wonderful film, and I saw it about 4 times! Estoy mirando realmente/escuchar a él ahora! (It's playing right now.)


     So, until next time--

An Inconvenient Truth

     Throughout this film, there are manyshots with extremely amazing lighting. But plenty of the other shots seem to have only natural lighting. But, there are also shots inside, with much dimmer
lighting, concentrating on the speakers voice when he is talking. Some scenes have lighting behind the main characters, making them seem mysterious, and extremely intellectual. With so many natural shots, from outdoors, actually makes the film seem surreal. Which is kind of ironic however, it kind of makes sense. The shots in this film are mostly normal but, there are some shots through the window of a plane that are warped and makes you understand the message of this film.


     There's not much else that is drawling about this film other than the lighting and the mixture of type of shots that are used in the film.


     So, until next time--

Hotel Rwanda

     Alright so here is the actual review:

     The lighting in the film Hotel Rwanda was well done. There are a lot of outdoor scenes, where it looks like maybe natural lighting was used, however, you can also tell that it was messed around with. Most of the scenes look like the lighting was overcast, as if there was a dull storm overhead, waiting to happen. Which, of course, works tremendously for the film because of the message it is portraying. If you look back to one of my recent entries, I had written a poem when we were half-way through the film, and I titled it 'Are we all just numbers?' See, there was genocide happening in Rwanda that finally ended in 1994, which is what the movie is about. It is centralized around a certain family, the man who runs the hotel that has turned into a refugee camp. The costuming stays generally the same throughout the film because most of the people don't have anything left for or to them. But, you can see by the costuming how the characters are ranked differently in society.


     It is extremely hard to pay attention to detail in this movie because of all the action going on at any point. There is some romance during the movie between the main character and his wife, but it is not enough to place the movie in that genre. Mainly, this movie is action and macabre. The set designs are fully comprehensive when you connect with what is going on in the film and realizing that this film is actually based on real events. Many of the sets were actual places that were affected by the Genocide. For the movie, the sets were renovated for the movie so that the actors were safe, however, they were still put through the horror of those torturous memories.


     The editing done for this film was a little shaking in the fact that some of the shots didn't fit well together in the final cut. Which meant that the plot line might have changed a bit. A few bits of the movie seemed to be randomly thrown in because of this small problem, which ruined the film a bit. However, eventually at the end, the film was pulled all together because of the overall problem that was happening during the time. At the same time, it seems as if these extra scenes were necessary to show that things could still be normal and the people affected by the Genocide were still sane, but it was obvious that things would not stay that way because in the very next shot, you go back outside to the hellish world.


     Aside from my review, I wish that people would have gone over and helped but now, something similar is happening in Darfur, which people can do something about. Please do.


     So, until next time--

Visions of Light

     'Visions of Light' is a film that talks about the importance of lighting in movies. It shows the development of lighting in films, ever since the beginning of film making. When films were first made, they did not want any shadows on the main characters. However, the brightness of the light on them needed to be very harsh, or very flattering to the actors or actresses. But then, cinematographers wanted to have shadows on the people because it added depth to the scene. To add emotion to the pictures.

     Up until the late 30's, films were only in black and white because that was the only way that film was made. Then people started to turn to colour because the colour added to the affect of the watchers experience and the actors performance. However, black and white was still used quite a lot because ti seemed to add a sort of a surreal element to the film itself.

     Lighting is still, and always will be, the largest considered element in any moving film. The type of lighting gives more life to a film. Cinematographers put coloured filters over the lights, or added a shade of blue or yellow to the shoots, so that the film received more emotion and had a more selective component to it. This component was to help the watcher see details more and concentrate on the main points.

      Emotion in a film is another component that cinematographers should consider very deeply before making a film. Emotions are brought out by the lighting in a film. Of course that is the actors job, yet if the film is a silent film, or has no sound, then you must convey to the audience what it is that you are portraying or showing. When you have shadows and shades, the shoots are better understood. The fusion of colour or black and white film, and the shadows, fading, and angle of the shoots makes a film what it is.

     Yes, cinematography has many more elements to it, lighting is the one thing you have to know, in order to make a successful film. The deal of having to make a film with such emotion is a hard job. You must make it believable to the audience that this is what is happening, what had happened before. 'Visions of Lighting', has multitudes of slips from the best movies ever made. The clips shown, all have wonderful lighting techniques to them, along with emotional fragments all throughout them.

     Most films have a yellowish tint to them, which accomidates the story at hand. However, you must take into consideration the plot of the story, and emotions of the scenes being shot. Bluish light is also very popular, and a favourite, when you are filming extremely emotional scenes in most any film.

     Then again, you have to make sure that no matter the genre of your film, the lighting should follow along with what is going on in the film, and what is happening at the current moment, in each particular scene. Otherwise, you may lose some of the affect that you want on certain shots. You must pay attention to the movements that are being made, in order to place the correct lighting in each individual shot. The emotion that is put across to the audience/viewers is an element that is extremely important.

     You need to be sure that the mood and emotion comes across very straight forward. In 'Visions of Light', the clips that they show, are the most intense scenes that I have ever seen. Most of them, the actors have austere shadows constantly coating their faces, in sporatic places. However, some of the shadows follow along with the faces, as to make it seem that the actor(s) are immobile but still moving at the same time. It is amazing the sentiment that is put forth in scenes such as these, and the methods that are used to pull it off.

     Filters are used to give scenes a shade of blue or yellow, or sometimes other colours. Most night scenes are actually shot in the daytime but, a filter is placed over the lens to make it seem like nighttime. So, in this case, it is a bit easier to do better placement of shadows and shading.

     So, this is my review for Visions of Light, from last year with a few updates to it.

     So, until next time--

Rear Window

     Alright so, here is my review from Rear Window that I wrote last year. I breaifly scanned it and it seems fine to me.

     In this film, half of the shots have fuzzy corners, as to mimmic the vision that the main character is seeing. Since this film was made in 1954, the film is grainy. However, with the plot and setting, it works completely. The main character is constricted to a wheelchair because he broke his leg. He is a newspaper photographer so he has a lot of film equipment in his apartment. So, he uses this to spy on his neighbors. The fuzzy corners, are to show what he sees through the camera lens as he watches his neighbors.

     With these corners, it gives the film a feel like reality. Like you actually there, watching them. Since the entire film is from his apartment, you only see the changes of night and day. And what is outside in others' private worlds. A lot of the movie is at dawn/dusk or night time so, the lighting that was chosen is very interesting. They have no background lights, when showing the main character, played by Jimmy Stuart. Which gives him an important look because the lights cut off half way down in his body in some of the medium shots they have of him.

     In the lighter scenes, but not daylight scenes, they have yellow/orange filters that were placed over the lights. Which helps set the mood because when it is dusk or dawn, the main character, R. T. Jeffers, is with his girlfriend. These are more romantic scenes, but he becomes obsessed with watching the neighbors. When they show the other apartments, they have different lighting. The 'struggling musicians' studio apartment is constantly brightly lit up, the ballerina's apartment usually has shadowed lighting, and so on and so forth. The lighting seems to match the characters in the movie.

     A theme in this film is that of which, one should not stick your nose in other people's business. Jeffers ends up breaking his other leg because he got into someone's business. But, a crime was solved. However, everyone in the vicinity of this apartment complex is now well aware that they should not bother other people. This is also a lesson for life. In showing the different people, with the different types of lighting, it is their own private life, and how their lifestyles are completely different.

     Because this film was made in 1954, the costumes are the clothing that people would wear in the 50's/ Boppsie type of clothing. Because the only outfit that Jeffers wears is his pajama’s, it seems a bit strange that everyone else is always constantly in different clothing. However, the clothing seems to go with the lighting of the scenes. Plus, the grainy texture of the film puts forth a drawl to the film, that is really nice.

     It forces you to concentrate on what is going on at the exact moment. However, you can get easily diverted because you hear other things going on at the same time. A lot of the shots are pans of the area that Jeffers can see. It is nice with these pan shots because you can see a full overview of what he sees. It is a bit annoying because it is only at eye level. When the shots do change to look down or he is looking around, it looks fake because it is going so fast. And the angle is changing so quickly that the shots get even grainier.

     With the final scene, this is really visable and it is slightly annoying because you realize that some of it was done in front of a green screen, which ruins the film and effect for you.

     Well, there it is.

     So, until next time--

Kapitel Eins Vokabeln

     So, I think I have a test next period on chapter 1 vocabulary in German but, I have no idea. I beieve it actually might be on the genetive case, which is possessive case.

     I am still a bit confused on that as well because the first day Frau Theiss explained it, I was on a field trip thus, I missed it. However, even though that was a week ago, I still don't quite understand it fully.

     But, I am speaking more spanish lately, and I am actually mixing up spanish and german words again. One mixed phrase I keep saying is 'Ich bin Hambre.' Which is I am hungry, but in german and spanish.

     That's how crazy I am.

     Oh, and lovely enough, I will probably get put in my home school, whether by Dillard or my parents. Once they find out about the little 'academic probation' situation, my dad will probably ship me to McArthur. At least I will have some friends in my grade. Like, two. But still, they rock and that's all I will need. But, I have also made a deal with my parents that if I get a 3.0 or higher on my next report card, I get to do Dual Enrollment, and then, I will be able to just go to college from there and not have to worry about silly high school drama. Yes, the stupid silly little high school drama is back again, not directly with me, but with some of my close friends and I am the person that I being the 'outlet'.

     Not in a bad way, but, whatever.

     I actually don't have any work right now in first period, reason I'm writing this, Mr. Calder. But, I did have a huge project in 1st and 3rd periods, and I just spent the past two days missing the class that I have this blog for to finish those projects up. However, seeing as I have already seen the movie that the class has just watched, I already have a review thus, I shouldn't worry too much.

     But, considering the review is from last year, I might have to update it a bit because I sucked at writing last year.

     So, until next time--

Lola, Rennt

     Lola, Rennt ist ein movie das ist originally in Deustch. In English, that means, Run, Lola, Run is a movie that was originally made in German. This is one of the most recent movies I have seen in Cinematography, my current 4th period class. Ina nut shell, it is about Lola, running around the city, in three different versions of the same scenerio. Since this is the case, all of the characters are wearing the same exact costuming throughout the entire film. Of course, there are parts of the film where there are glitches and you can pick out where the still photographer did not do his job properly. There are no costume changes in the film, but it seems like one of the actors plays multiple parts throughout the film. However, there are parts of the movie where people get killed and then they are back in the next part. So really, no one actually does die in this film. This is only because of the different versions of the scenerio.

     There was not much of a call for speial effects in ths film. The show of blood is a special effect but in the way of computer generated effects, there are virtually none at all. The lighting is basically the same throughout the film, because everything is based during the day, though some is inside.

     I can not think of anything else right now thus, this is the end of my review right now.

     So, until next time--

Ararat

     Ararat is a film depicting the Armenian Genocide, which the Turks still deny ever happened. The movie basically skips around a few stories, which tie together completely. An artist, Arshile Gorky's, time painting a picture of him and his mother, while he currently living in New York, taken back in Armenia. He ended up killing himself. The stories that tie into that, are first mostly, the time of the Armenian Genocide, in which Gorky lived through, and the story of a boy, Rafi who is on a mission to find out the meaning behind the connection of the genocide and his father's death and life. A few more characters also have parts in the last story in where they also connect with other things that happen throughout the film.

     This film is a bit confusing because it jumps around a lot. I think the director did that purposely to keep the audience on it's toes. You must pay attention because all of this is important to how things happen today. That seems to be the message that Atom Egoyan, the director of Ararat, is trying to put out there. In this film, there is a film being made about the Genocide, and what happened from the fictionalized point of view of Gorky. In this film being made, Rafi's mother is the art historian consultant of the movie.

     Emotions of this film are mainly rejection of truth and then what the real truths really are. The scenes depicting the genocide are from the film being made during this film. They have a yellowish tint to them, rendering the strong emotions about the genocide. Hatred and self-worth from the Turks are what is mainly causing the genocide to happen.

     In this film, the actual one, there are a lot of close up shots that are of the faces and body parts of the actors. This is used to emphasis the actions being made and words being said. These closeups are helpful to determine which parts of the story are the most important ones. Over the shoulder shots seem to be a favourite of Atom Egoyan. In almost every single conversation in this movie, there is at least one over the shoulder shot. There also seems to be, however, a lot side shots and full shots of everyone in the film. You get to be very familiar with their profiles, as well.

     There is one scene where there a mixture of a long shot, medium shot and rack effect throughout the entire scene. It is a sex scene but, in the background there are a bunch of plants (marijuana) and it is an interesting scene to me because they were able to incorporate the rack effect with the medium/long shot where your attention actually goes to what is in the background for a second or two. The mood in this scene is active but, at the same time it is an intimate scene. However, Rafi is distracted because of things he is thinking about.

     The element where they keep skipping around in the stories helps to move the movie forward. In the scenes where they are actually on the 'battle field' of the Armenian Genocide, the camera is shaking a bit, trying to pull you into the picture. So that you feel like you are a part of it, and are actually in the film. With that in mind, they also do a few pan shots of the surrounds of the main characters when they aren't speaking. They zoom into the characters so that the audience is concentrated on the character and not what is going on around them, but what they are doing. What their mission is.

     This film seems to be a mission for everyone who is a character. They are all in the modern times, and they all pretty much have worked on the film being made in this film. So, they are accustomed to the older clothing that was worn back in the 1920's, when the Genocide happened. There also seems to be an element of the older clothing style in what they are wearing as modern clothes. When depicting Gorky in the 1930's in New York City, it is exactly what you would expect a man of that time to wear. However, he is dressed down a bit, because he is painting. There are multiple scenes of him, but only one actual thing he s doing in all of them. Painting the picture of him and his mother. If you want to study good cinematography and learn how to really draw the audience in, you need to scrutinize the work of Ararat.

     This is a review from last year, one of the movies we probably wont see this year. I just decided to put it up here to have something in the mean time.

     So, until next time--