Man With a Movie Camera

Man With a Movie Camera was released in 1929, after four years of filming, editing, and imagining. This film takes you beyond watching a film. You become the cinematic experience. You view everything from start to finish. You see the initial filming, you see the editing of said film, you see the crowd shuffle in to view the film, you view the film, and then you are left to think about the film, and let it sink in. This documentary, was a documentary of not only the Soviet Union at a tough time, but also, a documentary of documentaries themselves. These images, as stated at the beginning of the film, are not there as a narrative or tell a story. They are simply there to be thought of, considered almost, instead of understood. This film comments on the fact that cinema is not simply a viewing of a film, but it is so much more. It is the creation of something new, and the entire experience associated with that creation.

A viral video that I distinctly remember being exposed to was Charlie Bit Me. My sister and her friend showed me this YouTube video, and within days, I can remember hearing about it all over school. It was hilarious, people could not get over it. It was quoted continuously in classes, it was posted all over MySpace, and the public could not get enough of this video. There were adaptations made using autotune, and recreations by 30 year old men. This video, which started as someone's simply home movie of their children, was now an international sensation. I am not sure that I would categorize this as film however. Yes it was filmed, and it is a captured on video. However, film to me is something that was intended. A documentary, even, has an initial purpose. They choose what to tape with the intent of showing it and creating a certain thought, or eliciting a certain reaction, even if that is not what ends up happening. This video was filmed by a parent who did not have the intent of capturing anything other than her children. I cannot discount it, because it is clearly influential, and some could argue against me saying that the intent was to show people her children, and like any documentary you cannot change or help how people react, or how the subjects act like any other documentary. However, I feel that if it is categorized as film, it definitely does not deserve to placed in the same standing as films like Man With a Movie Camera, and the like.

A Single Man

After reading the review of A Single Man in the New York Times, written by Manohla Dargis, I would have to say I not only don’t agree with her review, but I also think that Sontag would be disappointed with what she read. She gave lots of credit to Colin Firth as an actor, and I agree that he did a fantastic job. He is an excellent actor, and has never disappointed me. However, she basically discredits Ford in his abilities in creating this film. Firth did carry the movie very well and was a superb actor, however, I think that without other key elements and smart choices, his acting would not have been showcased as well, and would not have been able to really shine like it did. Dargis hardly mentions anything about form, only briefly discussing some camera qualities, the saturation of the film, and a decision made about the set design in one scene. Where was the discussion on the fact that when the camera was forced upon us in such tight  frames, we has no choice but to feel Firth’s pain and see the expressions on his face that she goes on and on about. Without the decision to film the majority of this film, all those important moments, so up close and personal, the entire effect of his sorrow would be lost. I think that she touched on film, but not in the ways that Sontag believed was most important. Sontag talks about the loving description of the work of art, yet, Dargis never describes it as a work, or a whole, or even in great depth. She does a fine job of an elegant plot synopsis, but if she has dug a little deeper and reached into the details of the saturation instead of writing it off as a distraction and a lack of confidence on Ford’s part, than maybe she could appreciate the film a little more. I think that overall, if she disagreed so much with the actual art of the film aside from Firth’s acting, than she could have given examples in where it was lacking or a more in depth explanation of her opinion.

Overall, I was completely captivated by this film. The filming was beautifully done and just so that I was able to stay completely involved with the main character, and truly feel for him. I think one of the greatest elements of mise-en-scene utilized in this film was composition. Everything from the camera angles to the lighting, was so wonderfully and beautifully executed. The saturation played a large role in this film, but in a subtle and honest way. The way that certain characters and certain scenes has a noticeable, but just slight, adjustment in the saturation, was so defining for certain moments. It allowed the audience to separate these moments from those where George was just plain miserable and depressed, from those few moments in the day when he found joy again, or saw hope in some situation. It was not overly dramatic as if the entire room was suddenly bright reds and neon yellows, but it was done with class and has its effect without wasting it. Another aspect of the composition which carried the film so well, was the camera angles. Most of the movie was shot with medium close-ups and extreme close-ups, a direct reflection of the type of film it was. It was meant to be something very personal. We were experiencing intimate details that he has only shared with his partner, that we were not given permission to see. We felt the pain that he did, we knew about the fact that he was disregarded by his lover’s family, and about his plan to kill himself. We would not have been able to connect and identify with his pain if we had not known him on such a personal, close level. These shots alone, tied with the wonderful acting skills of Colin Firth were able to evoke sympathy and curiosity about his situation, and whether we realized it or not, we cared whether he actually went through with the suicide or not. At the ending when people were upset that he had died, and wondered why couldn’t he have just lived and been happy since he finally found it, just goes to show that Ford succeeded in having his audience care so much about this character and his story, and that was done largely through camera angles. When we saw him load his gun from a point-of-view angle from George, or fill his hand with pills to take, we as an audience were not only forced to watch, but almost forced to partake in this action too. We were in a sense helping him load that gun and it created worry within us and we didn’t want to be doing that. When we experience moments of such close passion between Jim and George like his first flashback with they have just moved in and they are discussing curtains, we are clearly in their personal space in this medium close-up. This created so much tension in the audience, which some may ask why, but without that tension you subsequently would not have been able to feel as much pain when we snap back abruptly to George all alone, his hair grayed, and his eyes shut so tightly. We experience a rapid change from long, to medium long, to medium shots, to medium close-ups and finally ending on an extreme-close up in the opening scene where Jim is lying in the snow, dead and bloodied, and George walks up to curl up beside him. This let’s us understand the entire situation, and then forces us to then feel it as well. We must take it in as an outsider and feel at someone who is right there. Additionally, at the end of the film, when George is lying on his floor, having a heart attack, they approached this as a high-angle shot. This minimizes George and his death. It gave me the sense that this was just another moment. His life was not whole to him, he divided it into moments. The ones he hated, the ones he dealt with, and those of clarity. Which was this to him? I am not sure. What it was to me? One of clarity, and the fact that I began dividing the movie into these moments and how I felt about them, was important too. Overall, this film was able to pull me in and made me watch it emotionally. I was analyzing it, but I could not help let myself just be captivated and see him as someone I cared about, not a character. All of this was in large part to the composition, and definitely due to the creativeness of the film in all aspects.

Psycho

In the opening scene of Psycho, we span the city of Phoenix, Arizona, and are given the date and time of day. We are given a good idea of the first two characters we are introduced to, Marion and Sam, through the exposition. During this, we find out that they are dating, but have an odd relationship in where Sam commutes from the town he works in, to see Marion. They meet up on lunch breaks, and he complains that they cannot actually be together because he doesn’t have the money to get her out of this shabby lifestyle they live and into a secure and stable life together, because all his money is wasted to alimony checks. Whether the viewer is aware or not, this single scene is setting us up for the rest of the film. An enigma that I recognized was whether or not money can buy you happiness. I gathered this through the opening scene, and the scene that follows. Marion is begging Sam to come stay with her, and for them to just get married. However, money is the issue that he continually brings up. If only this could be solved, in a quick, easy way, their problems would be solved and they could be together. Or can they? The following scene shows Marion in her place of business, where a customer, Tom Cassidy, comes in to purchase through the business, a house for his daughter who is getting married. The man is paying $40,000 in cash, and comments that he isn’t buying happiness, but rather “buying unhappiness”. This scene is dripping with the threat of money becoming a common theme. The way that Marion interacts with the man on the topic of money and happiness, and her attitude when she is handling the money allows the audience to suspect that she has something on her mind, and doesn’t plan on going straight to the bank with the cash as her boss asks. Marion is very calm when speaking with the man who is clearly trying to buy his way into a date with her, but by the look in her eye, you can see that she is affected by this conversation, because it deals directly with her situation with Sam, as we saw in the previous scene. Once she is assigned the task to deliver the money, her eyes and quick move to ask to leave directly after she deposits the money. Her urgency is also sensed as soon as she leaves the office, and we are not even made aware of her plan yet. The non-diegetic music, that keeps a racing pace and sharp, shrill notes parallels Marion’s anxiety and the rush in her agenda. The question of whether or not money can buy you happiness continues through the first part of the film, until the murder of Marion. We are along for Marion’s ride, and her attempt to skip town, find Sam, and run away with the money to a “private island”, her idea of a perfect, carefree life. Marion’s driving scene, once she is far from town, her boss and Tom Cassidy, is one where the audience is quite unsure of her fate, and whether she can truly get away with this crime. However, once she escapes, we are met with a little relief, that just maybe she would. This scene, where she is escaping town, found in her car on the side of the road, and for a brief time followed by the cop, is one in which the enigma is met with a delay. The equivocation, or mixture of fraud and truth, creates a nerve racking mood, putting the audience on the edge of their seat. Marion is out of town, away from those who knew she had money, and should be home free. But then, she is met by a suspicious cop who has no reason to suspect her of any wrong-doing, aside from the fact that she is acting suspicious. This creates a conflict in our feeling as we watch the scenes unfold. She is let go by the cop, and we think she will be able to leave without getting caught. But wait, then she is being followed, and we once again are thinking that it is over for her, and her plan is foiled. We are once again thinking maybe she has a chance when she loses the cop as he turns off the main road, and we are sure it was just coincidence and her mind that was creating the fact that he was following her. Just as soon as we calm down, we are shocked to find him once again watching her, across the street from the auto store. At this point in the story line, we cannot be sure whether these are all incidents to fool us and play with our emotion, or if will become truth, and she will either be caught or go free. This is a mixture of fraud and truth because she never reaches happiness, but it isn’t due to the cop or anyone catching her for her crime. The effect of this delay is that the audience is already well into the plot, and still completely undecided as to what is going to happen, whether or not she is finding happiness, or who exactly the cop character is going to develop into. The true narrative is not all the way understandable, and it is able to keep the audience still so involved and anxious to see more, because some things are revealed without giving away too much, or becoming too predictable. Unfortunately, the enigma I recognized was never answered. Although Marion died, and some could see this as a definite ending, that money clearly does not buy you happiness, but rather horrible events, possibly death, it isn’t. The money was stolen, which automatically put a different effect on the situation. This wasn’t earned money where she could ever let her guard down about it. Also, the money was not the reason she was killed, but simply a parallel narrative to Marion’s story, and it created a smooth fade into this new story.

      My opinion on whether this film could be considered a readerly or writerly text changed dramatically from the beginning of the film, all the way to the last five minutes. In the beginning of the story, I was constantly­­ making predictions of who the cop would become, when we would see him next, or whether or not the Mother was real or imagined. I caught on to the fact that I was pretty sure that when they discussed with the sheriff that Norman’s mother poisoned her boyfriend and herself, that Norman himself was somehow responsible. But then how could she still be alive? I read into different characters and created my own ideas for why they did things, like why Norman had so many stuffed birds, and why he was so obedient to his mother. Until the last scene of the movie, when Norman is caught and the doctor comes out to inform everyone on his findings, I had created most of the movie for myself, and was intrigued. Then, the doctor explains to everyone that Norman is leading a double life in his own mind, and was living life through his mother’s mind. The doctor explains every detail, and gives an explanation for each event. Every murder, why he is dressed up, why his mother’s corpse is still there, and why she and her boyfriend are dead. I felt that as soon as the doctor explained everything, the movie immediately became a readerly text. There was now no need to frame different scenes for yourself, or to try and created an explanation for yourself. He gave it to you. Point blank, this is why everything happened, and that is that. I really enjoyed this style however, because you had all the enjoyment of a writerly text in the sense that you were kept guessing, and trying to solve it for yourself. It intrigued me and allowed me to stay connected to the plot. However, it has a definite resolve at the end of the film. It did not leave you wondering or in need of some type of closure. Overall, I would consider this film a readerly text, with writerly qualities in the beginning.

Bound by Haiti

Bound by Haiti was an inspirational documentary depicting the story of two men, one Haitian and one American, coming together in an effort to save Haiti from its devastated state. In a story of struggle, tragedy and perseverance, John Bougher and Roman Safiullin captured an national crisis on camera, and have taken it upon themselves to help those in need. Two UF documentary film students, John and Roman were in Haiti filming a documentary about the partnership of American, Aaron Jackson and Haitian, John Dieubon. These men work together in a non-traditional relationship interested in starting a wave of change in Haiti, beginning with a few small but important orphanages, and Aaron's non-profit organization that strives to de-worming the youth of Haiti. The documentary follows these two men, all the way through the unexpected and tragic earth quake that struck Haiti during filming. It is a message to all of America, and the world, of the state of crisis Haiti is in, but also about their determination to get through the crisis, and come out a better, stronger Haiti.

The film is a raw depiction of Haiti. John and Roman, who answered questions following the screening, very respectfully, but strategically capture still shots of bodies trapped under buildings, and scenes of loved ones running through the streets, screaming, crying and in shock, of what just happened. These scenes shocked people, brought tears to the audience's eyes, and truly effected everyone in the room. The film continued to follow the two characters in their post-quake attempts to clean up Haiti, and continue to help. This documentary was touching and extremely well executed. It was much more than a simple documentary, and it has potential to effect the world. Although an awful source, the earth quake was a large source of tension in the film, and though it does not end with a traditional resolve, that is reality, as documentaries are. The people of Haiti have not had a resolve. Each day continues to be a struggle, and they are making strides every day. This film goes deep into the subject of Haitian turmoil, discussing political, social and economical issues. It was very diverse, well arranged, well shot, and overall excellently executed. I would recommend this film to everyone I know, and plan to purchase a copy for this exact reason.

Visit http://www.boundbyhaiti.com/index.html for more information on the film, film makers and how you can help.

Full Metal Jacket

This review is very well executed! It has the perfect combination of plot synopsis and analysis. No one wants to read a “review” which just tells them what they could read on the back of the movie when it hits Blockbuster. When looking at a review, you want to learn what is good and bad about the movie, and what elements it contains. This way, you are able to decide if it is something you would go see. Or, if you are reading the reviews after seeing the film, you often times want to compare your opinions to those of the general public, and therefore, a plot synopsis will do no good! The discussion of everything from the camera angles, to the score, to the comparison to other movies, and its chronological review, Rita Kempley does a wonderful job at not only describing, but analyzing this film. This review is not for those who don’t have relatively in depth knowledge about film. I have only completed a few classes on the subject, and was able to understand some, and piece together other parts. The vocabulary and technical terms that Kempley uses is quite advanced for a review. It was obviously aimed towards an audience of advanced studies, and therefore, makes sense that it is not purely plot synopsis or basic good or bad. After seeing the film, Full Metal Jacket, I can honestly say that this review hit it right on the head. All of the technical and plot aspects Kempley described were quite evident in the movie. It puts into perspective the aspects I noticed but wasn’t able to quite describe or analyze. Overall, the review was quite accurate. Someone interested in seeing this film would definitely be able to decide if they would truly enjoy this movie, because as advanced as the review is, it mirrors the advanced intellectual level of the film.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/fullmetaljacketrkempley_a0ca77.htm