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.