A SIngle Man Walks Through the Crowd - Cinephilia

A moment in A Single Man that made me think was during the scene in which George arrives at school in the morning.  As he walks through the crowd, which is walking in the opposite direction as him, the crowd moves around him.  At the end of this long, following shot, there are two girls who are talking to each other, who are forced to split so that George can get by. I couldn't help but wonder, was that intentional? If so, what is the purpose?

While watching the rest of the movie, I kept this moment in my thoughts.  I tried to keep it in mind so that I could try and attach some kind of meaning to these two girls.  What I came up with was that these two girls might represent his two closest companions:  Charley (his female best friend) and Jim (his deceased life partner).  This moment could symbolize the distance that is occurring/has occurred in these relationships, which are on opposite spectrums of his life.  Charley is, presumably, the last girl George slept with and Jim is his lost love.  During this downward spiral which George intends on concluding in suicide, he is distancing himself from these two people, whether knowingly or not.  

Another train of thought I had on this matter was what the entire crowd represented, and not just the two young females.  This moment in the film did not have any dialogue, so it must have been a symbolic representation of something.  I believe the crowd going in the opposite direction generally represents the rest of the world in George's eyes.  We can't see his eyes, but he's actively walking through the crowd, much like how his mind is working towards the idea of suicide (he has the gun with him throughout the day).  He's not focused on daily concerns at this point in the movie, and has different intents from those of the students and faculty.  I thought this was a great establishing moment in the film, and allowed for the viewer to draw a lot of assumptions about the main character.  .  

Blog Assignment #5 - The Death of Cinema

The concept of the "death of cinema" is a legitimate concern for the film buffs of the world.  Within the past several years, 3D and stunning CGI graphics have become staples in the film industry, and can be found in nearly half of the movies in theaters every day.  What 3D and CGI do can cheapen the movie going experience for those of us who truly adore the cinema for its original greatness.  The cinema has entered a new phase of novelty that doesn't seem to be wearing off.  It's all about the money and 3D/CGI sells.  

But these attractions aren't always evil.  In fact, quite often, CGI, and even 3D, are used in ways that enhance film.  This concept was quite clear to me  when I watched the film "Melancholia".  The opening of this movie was spectacular, visually.  the establishing shots in this film actually took place at the conclusion of the story, when the world is on the verge of destruction.  There is no way this strong establishment could have been made as eloquently as it was without modern technology and CGI.  

With that being said, I think CGI has its place in film, and can definitely be utilized in ways that not only fit into the movie, but make the movie.  For me, this opening was simply awesome.  The moments in this opening, such as electricity shooting upward form Justine's fingers, or Claire carrying her son on the golf course (19 holes?) create lasting images in my mind.  Now when I think of "Melancholia", those two are the first images that come into my head.  This is a good thing.

So all in all, the current notion of the "death of cinema" is full of grey areas.  While many films are abusing CGI and 3D, there are other cases in which these tools are used for the betterment of films.  It is just up to the film buffs of the world to decipher where these tools are used for good and where they are used for evil.  

Outline for Essay #1 - Psycho

Main Argument:

(preceding this thesis statement, I will give unbiased, in-depth descriptions of both approaches to film study)

- In studying both V.F. Perkins' and Robin Wood's approaches, formalist and Idealogical respectively, I believe Wood's approach serves film analysis best to fully appreciate film as a whole. 

*** Will continue to compare the concepts and attempt to persuade reader into thinking my way by stating that the perception of the spectator is more important than the hierarchy of shot, scene, film, and cinema. *** 

Claim #1:

- In breaking down specific moments in Psycho, we can understand Hitchcock's motives by analyzing their effects on the spectator.  

        - Support:  Noticing that the only character whose eyes we do not see is the    police man, we can draw conclusions about what eyes represent in this film (the dark pit of the human soul). 

    ***I will insert a quote from Wood here***

Claim #2:

- After viewing the film and evaluating its effect on the spectator, we can ask ourselves, "what makes Psycho great?".

- Support:  What makes the film great is that we as the viewer are put in position by Hitchcock to empathize with Marion and Norman, sequentially (transitioning with the shower murder). Through analysis of these characters and their personalties/actions, we can conclude that Psycho, in its simplest form, is a classic story of good versus evil. 

Claim #3:

- The final stage of Wood's ideological approach is to consider the film and how it fits into the audience's world.  

- Support: At the time of Psycho's release, Freudian concepts were gaining popularity and being exercised by intellectuals everywhere.  (I don't     love this line, but its a tentative placeholder for my general idea) Hitchcock's intent with Psycho may have been to create curiosity towards the human   subconscious (perhaps reference Wood again). This analysis of the subconscious inevitably reverts itself back to ourselves, having the audience consider their internal character.  

Blog Assignment #2 - Midnight in Paris

Upon an initial screening, Midnight in Paris can be taken as a typical, run of the mill romantic comedy judging by its usage of conventions featured in almost every film within the genre.   It has all the key elements:  an attractive couple, a charming main character, a picturesque setting, romance,  and witty humor (the only thing it was missing was the slightly overweight, less handsome yet funnier best friend).  But to those of us who are familiar with the works of Woody Allen, and those of us who hold Allen in high regard, well, we expect some more depth.

This film is no exception to Woody Allen's standards as a writer/director.  I must say that I do not believe our director sold out in any way when it came to making Midnight in Paris.  I see it all as a play on the assumptions we have with "rom-coms", and a jab at Hollywood, while simultaneously winking at his fans. The film appears to be quite straightforward at times, but when you really think about it, Midnight in Paris does not flow in the same way that Hollywood films do, and that is certainly intentional.

Let's look at a few examples...

I'll begin with the opening montage of images from all across Paris.   Ask yourself... Would a Hollywood movie do this?  I didn't think so.  Many people, critics especially, would argue that this opening scene was dragged out, but I strongly disagree.  Woody Allen's films always seem to romanticize the city in which it takes place. And since we were stepping into Paris, I believe it was completely necessary and appropriate for this opening to be as long as it was to fully establish the setting.  This intro goes on to have even more significance when we see that Gil has such a love for the city, wanting to "walk through Paris in the rain".  The shots of the city during a downpour foreshadow this aspect of Gil's personality.

Later in the film, another moment arises where I believe Woody Allen wants the audience to question Hollywood and its common themes.  The moment in which Gertrude Stein brings Inez's affair to Gil's attention is quite  un-Hollywood.  Usually, this type of plot action or character realization spurs dramatic soundtrack-infused tornadoes of action, as obvious climaxes in Hollywood movies.  In midnight in Paris, this moment simply just happens, and the break up scene is much more concise and less dramatic than one would anticipate.  Moments such as these call certain assumptions into question, and I think that was definitely part of Allen's vision for Midnight in Paris.