Screening Notes

Screening Notes: "Children of Men"

4/17/12        

The moment that I wish to talk about occurred shortly after Sid discovered Kee’s child and tried to turn them into the authorities. After Kee and Theo escaped from Sid with Marichka’s help, they went to stay with her family for protection. This was a beautiful moment in the film. The scene began with a panning view of a birdcage with two exquisite yellow birds. In addition, the camera focused on a dresser where I noticed two semi-melted candles that formed the number “88.”  As the camera moved, we were shown Kee lying on the bed with the baby in her arms and a few other women. Everyone looked comfortable and peaceful. The women ate and fed the baby small pieces of a peeled orange. Everyone was happy in this scene and appreciating the miracle of the birth and the beauty of the child. The conversation that occurred in this scene had to do with the name of the new baby girl. Kee said that she wanted to call her Bazouka. Theo questioned the name. Kee said, “You don’t like it?” Theo then replied by saying, “I was getting used to Froley.” (Froley was the name that Kee had been planning to use had she given birth to a boy). I’m not quite sure why this scene has stood out for me but I think that it did because it was one of the more serene scenes of the film. It was a very upsetting movie but this moment was one that made me smile.

________________________________________________________________________
Screening Notes: "Hugo"

Recently I feel like every time we watch a movie, I say that it’s my new favorite, but this time I think I really mean it! Hugo was an absolutely incredible movie—the storyline, the visuals, the acting—all of it came together in the perfect way to create something fabulous. I also loved the fact that so much of the storyline tied into things that we’ve learned in class and that many of the clips of Méliès’ and the Lumiere Brothers’ films were ones that I recognized. For these notes I want to point out some of my favorite moments of the film and some observations that I made throughout.

1. When Hugo was watching people through the 4 in the clock and from his perch above the train station, it reminded me of watching a movie. This occurred in particular when he was watching the woman with the dog talk to the older gentleman. He watched them interact when the dog bit the man, which caused him to laugh. Watching this reality from afar allowed Hugo to be a spectator, seemingly watching a “narrative” unfold and providing him entertainment. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that people watching is very much like watching a film.
2. I loved the parallel between the film “Arrival at a Train Station” and Hugo’s dream. His dream represented the fears of the spectators as the watched the Lumiere Brothers’ film coming to fruition. When the train crashed through the glass windows of the train station it resembled what it might have looked like had the train crashed through a movie screen.
3. I feel like this is something that has been noticeable since watching “The Prestige.” The inside of the automaton reminded me of a birdcage. This is certainly fitting since the automaton was trapped and limited in its role. It only had one ability—to draw a simple picture. However, when Hugo “set it free” the automaton was able to serve another purpose—bringing joy to Méliès.
4. Again I noticed connections to “The Prestige” with the references to magicians. There is definitely a clear connection between magic and film especially in relation to Méliès (one of the main characters of the film). However, I believe that magicians were portrayed in a much more favorable and lighthearted manor in “Hugo.”
5. Just a general comment—I absolutely adored Isabelle’s character. It was adorable how she was using big words. Very precocious!
6. This is something I'm adding in after having seen Hugo for the second time at the Christian Center. I've done some reading and I learned that Méliès based "Voyage to the Moon" loosely on Jules Verne's writing. Jules Verne was referenced many times in this film, as was Méliès of  course. However, the connection was not directly stated. I thought that this was very interesting. 
________________________________________________________________________
Screening Notes: "A Single Man"

The other day we watched “A Single Man” in class, which, once again, was a movie I thoroughly enjoyed. Of course it was a rather sad film, but it truly explored layers of human emotion, which I found fascinating.

What we were asked to focus on while watching the movie were cinephiliac moments. There were many that I noticed, some of which I have been able to make sense of, and others…not so much. In any event, here they are!

1. The most cinephiliac moment for me was when George went to the bar. In the scene, there was a life-saver reading “S.S Victoria.” I’ve attempted to look this up to create some kind of connection or reason for its placement in the scene but I cannot. The only thing I found that probably didn’t have a connection was the fact that the ship S.S Victoria was sent to the “Firth of Forth” as a target ship. Firth of Forth…Colin Firth? Eh…I don’t know.
2. The first thing I noticed was the name of the production company—“Fade to Black.” While I’m sure this is something that they have come up with since it is a cinematic term, it was also interesting in regard to the concept of fading away with death. When you die, in the most cryptic sense, everything just goes dark and “fades to black.” It is also ironic since there were many color fades in the film. When George was remembering Jim (with the exception of the beach scene) or when he was happy in the present, the colors were saturated and bright, but when he was not, the colors were extremely washed out and faded.
3. When there was a big focus on the neighbors’ house, it was again in bright, saturated colors and filmed in slow motion. The family looked and dressed as if they were in an advertisement for the perfect cookie-cutter American family. What stood out to me most though in that scene was a white flower. I wish I knew what type of flower it was exactly to see if there was any important symbolism there.
4. The book that George was teaching his class about—“After Many a Summer” by Aldous Huxley. I haven’t read it but I looked it up and it seems to be about reflecting on life which is something George was certainly doing throughout the film.
5.  I literately have no idea why I noticed this or what it stood for but as George was cleaning off his desk I saw that there was a Hershey bar there. Perhaps this was merely product placement but it seemed so unnoticeable that I doubt that was the case. I wonder if it was supposed to represent the bitter-sweetness of life (not that it was necessarily bittersweet chocolate…but still?)
6. There was a major focus on eyes and mouths throughout the film. When George would look at people he focused on their blinking eyes and moving mouths. This focus on eyes was reiterated in a rather epic was with the Psycho movie poster. When I first saw it, I thought it was from Psycho but I kind of couldn’t believe it! Then I finally saw the wording and realized that I had been right. I want to stay focused on this whole moment. There are a few things about this that I want to explore:

a.    The Psycho reference was perhaps used again when George stepped into the shower as a possible location for his suicide. Death in a shower sounds familiar!

b.     While George and Carlos were standing in front of the poster Carlos said “Sometimes awful things have their own kind of beauty.” This is ironic because of course the actions within Psycho are horrific and awful but the movie itself is beautiful. The way it is filmed, the technique—if it weren’t as incredible as it is the movie wouldn’t be such a legend.

c.     Finally, the color of the poster contrasted with the next scene. It went from a sharp blue to a deep red. I want to take this further in my next point.

7. The color blue seemed very important—in eyes (both for characters and the movie poster), Jennifer’s blue shoes and dress (which by the way, became more saturated every second they were shown in the reflection).

8. When George was “getting his affairs in order” and putting a note on his post-mortem tie he wrote to tie it in a Windsor knot. Curious if there’s any symbolism there.

Other things I noted that might not have been cinephiliac:

The last lines of the film were from George: “A few times in my life I've had moments of absolute clarity, when for a few brief seconds the silence drowns out the noise and I can feel rather than think, and things seem so sharp and the world seems so fresh. I can never make these moments last. I cling to them, but like everything, they fade. I have lived my life on these moments. They pull me back to the present, and I realize that everything is exactly the way it was meant to be.” ---for some reason this made me thing of movies and how they give us clarity and can drown out the real world in a way that lets us gain perspective.

I just loved how Jim was reading “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”

All of the women in the movie looked like models.

This isn’t cinephiliac because it was definitely intentional (thus more Formalist)—but I found it really interesting how the idea of looking at a photo and enabling it to take you back to a memory was represented through the use of black and white for the beach scene.

___________________________________________________________________
3/27/2012
Screening Notes: "The Prestige"

Since we’ve been watching films in this class I’ve been trying to push myself to focus more on the technical elements like the lighting and the angle. However, I found that very hard to do while watching “The Prestige.” I was so wrapped up in the plot, consumed by trying to figure it out, that paying attention to small details wasn’t something that I was capable of doing. In my opinion, the sign of a truly excellent movie lies in my inability to figure out its ending. I like unpredictable stories with twist endings and this movie certainly provided that. As swept up in the story as I was, there were a few things that I took note of that I want to discuss:

• We’ve talked a lot lately about what gimmicks Hollywood uses to make big hits—particularly casting. Many movies don’t have much substance but are popular because of the star factor. In regard to the Prestige, I think there was in incredible balance. There were certainly many recognizable and popular stars—Scarlet Johansson, Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, etc. which added to the films success. However, the film didn’t simply rely on the celebrities. The story stood on its own and was incredibly unique. The dialogue shined and the cinematography was excellent. Frankly, I think that the movie would have been just as good with no-name actors (provided that they were sufficiently talented).

• There was one smaller detail that I noticed. When Tesla was demonstrating his machine by using a cat as opposed to the black hat—I took note of the fact that the cat was black. This not only created a color-scheme relation between the black hat and the black cat but it also created a cultural symbol. This falls into semiotics as well as cultural studies. Black cats are associated with bad luck and superstition in our culture. This obviously ties into concepts of black magic, which seems perfectly fitting given the entire storyline of the movie. This idea of darker magic was reinforced into our minds as we saw something that is symbolic on screen.

• I don’t really know where I’m going with this thought, but throughout the movie I kept thinking about Méliès and his “on screen magic.” He sort of invented the foundation for a movie like “The Prestige.” Overall, I was just constantly reminded of his work and am searching for a connection.

• There were two quotes that really stood out to me, both at the end of the film. I looked them of for precision:

Robert: The world is simple. It's miserable, solid all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second, then you can make them wonder, and then you... then you got to see something really special... you really don't know?... it was... it was the look on their faces...

and

Cutter: Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled.

Both of these quotes make me think about what we’ve been talking about in class. It’s this idea of whether reality on screen is important. Do we go to movies to escape from the real world because it’s so miserable (sort of like in “Purple Rose of Cairo”)?  Do we want to be fooled by CGI effects and implausible stories? Or do we want to see an exact replica of the real world on screen—a movie without any sort of “illusion”? At this point, there are so many questions that are racing through my mind and I’m still trying to figure them out myself but I think that the dialogue from the movie was extremely thought provoking. I’m wondering if this connection is one of the reasons you chose this film for our screening as well….? :)

______________________________________________________________________

Melancholia Screening Notes:

            Before I go into detail, I first have to say that I absolutely loved this movie. I think it’s definitely one of my favorites that we’ve watched so far in the class.

            The opening of the movie was probably one of the most powerful and extraordinarily captivating scenes of any movie that I’ve seen before. Everything was happening in extreme slow motion allowing us to focus on each image, absorbing its meaning and power. In addition, this sequence was set to incredibly powerful music (after looking it up, I found out it’s music from the opera Tristan and Isolde by Richard Wagner). The images included ones of two planets colliding in space, a women (Claire) running with a child (Leo) in her arms, a horse collapsing, and of another woman (Justine) in three different ways--holding her fingers up to the sky in such a way that looked as if they were exuding electricity, sinking into the water in her wedding dress, and trying to escape entanglement of a plant. What was interesting to note was the fact that there was no rapid cutting of the images. Each had its time to shine. Of course after watching the entire movie, it is clear that these are “foreshadowing” images of what’s to come shortly before the planet Melancholia collides with Earth as well as representations of the characters' fears.

            The music used in to opening was used again multiple times throughout the movie and almost served as a cue that something monumental or purposeful was happening. For example, we heard it again while Justine went outside at her wedding, when the wedding guests went outside to send off the lanterns, and at the very end of the movie when Justine, Claire, and Leo are sitting inside their “cave.”

            I also really liked how the movie was divided into the two parts, allowing us to connect with both Claire and Justine. I have to say that I liked Claire a lot better than Justine. I truly felt badly for Justine on many occasions, particularly in the scene where she couldn’t even get into the bathtub. However, she was just not a very likeable character. I felt worse for Claire though. She’s desperately trying to take care of her sister while dealing with her own anxieties and family.

            My only true complaint about the movie is the fact that there wasn’t much backstory. Certain things that were said left me wanting more of an explanation. When Justine was eating meatloaf she said it tasted like ashes. Perhaps this is just a side affect of depression that I don’t know about, but I couldn’t help but wonder if this was connecting to something else like the death of someone she knew in a fire. Similarly, I didn’t really understand the significance of the photo of the land that Michael gave Justine at the wedding.

            My final thought is just a comment on how depressing the ending was. I couldn’t let go of my optimism that perhaps the “cave” would actually protect Justine, Claire, and Leo and that everything would somehow be okay until we saw everything catch on fire.

______________________________________________________________
3/13/12

Screening Notes: The Hurt Locker

3 moments that portray war/violence/death through use of aesthetic techniques (i.e.: slow motion, camera angles, character development, acting, lighting, etc.]

I have chosen to focus on how aesthetic techniques create a particular portrayal of death. Before discussing three particular moments, I want to make an overall observation about the fact that within the film, death (at least in the moment it was happening) was never extremely graphic. There were a few occasions where we would see the aftermath of death (i.e. finding the boy's body) and note its horror, but the deaths themselves were never extremely bloody or gory.

1. Sergeant Matt Thompson’s Death—This took place within the first few moments of the film. Thompson was trying to disarm a bomb when it was set off. He began to move away from it, but not quickly enough. As soon as the explosion occurred, we saw Thompson be thrust into the air and then fall onto the ground. All of this occurred in slow motion. I have to admit, I didn’t want to believe that Thompson was dead, and the way that this scene was filmed, left me wondering for a moment whether or not he was. We never actually saw his dead body, or bloody wounds. He was in his gear, including the helmet which made it so that we couldn't even see his face. All we saw was him lying on the ground. It wasn’t until the next scene when Sanborn was talking about his death, that it was confirmed in my mind.

2. Death of the British Mercenaries—In the desert Sanborn, James, and Eldridge come across Arab men, who reveal themselves to be British mercenaries. The mercenaries had captured two Iraqi men and were holding them captive. As the groups of men were talking, they were attacked. In this scene, there is a great deal of death. What I want to focus on is the abrupt nature of the deaths. Three of the British men were killed, including their team leader. One of the men, who I believe was named Chris, was driving a hummer, shooting from it. He is shot from behind and we instantly see him fall. He almost sinks down into the hummer. This was shot from a frontward angle but yet again, we see no bloodshed. Next to die was the team leader. He was on a hill, shooting at a stone building where the enemy was hiding. While he was fixing his rifle, he was shot in the chest by the man in the building and instantly killed. In this instance, we see him fall off of the hill. I believe that this was shot from an upper angle. As we looked down at him he is dangling and falling off his post. I also want to point out that later on in this scene James needed ammo so he asked Eldridge to “check the dead guy.” I want to focus on this because it is an example, though not aesthetic, of how death seemed so normal to these men. They were desensitized. It was “the dead guy”—not referred to by name. Finally, during all of this, when Eldridge kills the man on the train track, he has this extremely intriguing look on his face. This aesthetic element truly showed us his emotion about killing someone for the first time. It was a mix of pleasure, accomplishment, but also fear and confusion.

3. Colonel John Cambridge’s Death—John Cambridge was a good friend of Eldridge’s. He had gone out with them for the day to watch them “at work” as they checked out a building where there were supposedly bomb-making supplies. While the others are inside the building, Cambridge is trying to get some men to move out of the way. After James, Sanborn, and Eldridge are in their tank, they call to him to get in too. However, he doesn’t move quickly enough—a bomb goes off instantly killing him. We don’t ever see Eldridge after the explosion, but we do see his hat. The explosion itself was very violent, but once again, we skip out on the gore of death. It is also interesting to note Eldridge’s reaction to Cambridge’s death. He is bewildered and says “he was just there.”

A few other things I wanted to note about death in general in the movie:

•  The car bomb scene—though no one ended up dying, the tension of the potential to die was immense. The way the scene was filmed, there was a lot of suspense created wondering if the next time the camera cut, someone would die.
• There was a huge difference in attitude between the death of the soldiers and the locals. When once civilian died, a soldier looked at him and with very little emotion said, “he’s not gonna make it.”

Other Random Notes:

•  Difference in how James and Sanborn treated the locals. James was nicer—befriending Beckam (buying DVDs, playing soccer with him. This can also be seen in how he reacts to “Beckam’s” death.
• Long silence during the scene with the British mercenaries.
•  With war in general—the emphasis on the need for communication and reliance.

________________________________________________________________________
2/28/12

Screening Notes: Viaggio in Italia

Denotation:

When Katherine and Alex were in the heat of the moment, declaring out loud for the first time to each other that perhaps they should, and in fact were going to get divorced, the filming was very interesting. Both Katherine and Alex were shot from the side, each taking up almost precisely half the screen. In addition, a bright light seemed to illuminate both of their faces. It’s notable that the lighting on each of them was equal. Neither of them seemed to be more in the shadow, or more in the foreground than the other.

Connotation:

This movie was released in the early 1950s. This was a time of social change as women were starting to become more influential. The number of women who were part of the workforce was growing. Thus, this concept of women being more equal to men was important. Perhaps the filming of this scene was to indicate equality between man and woman. Both Alex and Katherine were portrayed in an equal light. Neither character seemed more important or more powerful than the other.

Another possible explanation: it could have been done like this on an emotional level to indicate that the feelings in the moment were truly mutual. It wasn’t that one character was feeling something while the other wasn’t. Both felt the same way. Of course it was later revealed that neither of them actually wanted to get divorced, but in the moment it seems as if both do. It wasn’t solely Alex’s idea with Katherine standing in the shadows with a sad look. Both of the characters were in the foreground, being assertive.

Myth Produced:

The myth produced is that Alex and Katherine are both strong individuals who are sure of themselves and their decision to get divorced. This however, is an illusion. Both of them are feeling a sense of fragility.  Similarly, both have doubts about the divorce. The bright lighting was almost ironic as well, as it made the moment seem happy and optimistic while in fact, the prospect of divorce upset both Katherine and Alex.

Additional Thoughts:

• Strong use of establishing shots throughout the film
• Another possible use of semiology--Katherine's leopard coat, sunglasses, and gloves that she wore toward the beginning of the film being symbolic of wealth?
• I thought one really interesting scene was the one when Alex was trying to get a drink from the maid and he kept trying to point at his glass. Maybe this can tie into semiology since it's motions that are universal? There was a language barrier between Alex and the maid so he was trying to use visual cues to create an understanding. 
• I liked how the couples and the women with the baby carriages were symbolic of everything that Katherine wants out of life. It was also interesting how when Alex was in the car with the girl he picked up off the street a couple could be seen extremely briefly in the headlights of the car.

_________________________________________________________________________________



2/14/12


Screening Notes: "Psycho"
Director: Alfred Hitchcock


Before watching "Psycho," I had never seen any of Hitchcock's movies before. Now that I've seen this one though, I'm definitely interested in watching his others. Overall, I really liked the movie and found it gripping but at the same time I felt really tense as I watched the film due to the fact that it was rather terrifying. (It left me a little bit scared to walk home after class!) There were a lot of things that stood out to me as I watched the film--some cinematic and others just random.

• Hitchock closely follows the shot/reverse/shot rule
• There was a lot of "guiding" in this film--the camera constantly told us where to look and in a way, what to expect. Some examples:
• When Marion is packing to leave the camera focuses on the money, the suitcase, and then her. This was enhanced by the suspenseful music (which I want to talk about more later.)
• At the used car dealership there was a lot of focus on the various license plates (and again at the motel when Norman was driving away with the body)
• Focus on the birds on the wall
• When Marion was in the shower prior to being stabbed the focus alternated between her, the shower head, and outside of the shower.
• Focus of Marion dead on the floor and then  on the money
• When Norman was cleaning up the blood
• I recall in class we talked a lot about Hitchcock's focus on montage; you can have an image and then the subsequent images affects how we perceive the first image. I saw a good example of this when Norman was watching the car sink into the water. We saw his reaction and then the car, his reaction and then the car.
• A major element of the cinematic nature of this film was the music. You knew that something bad was going to happen when the suspenseful music began to play. The music always affected the mood and tied into what was going on in the scene.
• Another cinematic moment that stood out was when Marion was first beginning her drive and she heard the voices in her head. This voiceover of what was actually happening with the other characters/what she imagined them saying was an extremely interesting technique for storytelling.
• When Marion was nearing the motel and it began to rain I thought that it was cinematic. Rain tends to symbolize bleak and dreary times and is also indicative of horror. Again, the suspenseful music played as the rain fell and the windshield wipers appeared to be moving in time with the music.
• A huge cinematic decision which was obviously important to the film was the fact that we never saw the mother's face during Norman's conversations with her. When Norman was talking to her in the mansion, all we saw was the hall, ceiling, and the stairs. This is something that is understood once we find out the truth about Norman and his mother. Perhaps the technique was foreshadowing?
• Interesting filming as the Detective was going upstairs (before he was stabbed). As he walked up the stairs, the background featuring the carpet seemed to be getting blurred.
• Finally--returning to the focus of the birds on the wall and Norman's general obsession with birds--I want to think about the auteur theory. I know that one of Hitchcock's most famous films is "The Birds." I was wondering if there is mention of birds in all of his films/if it's a trend. If so, I wonder if that could be related into the auteur theory.

_____________________________________________________________________


2/7/12

Screening Notes: “The Grapes of Wrath”

Director: John Ford

Screenplay By: Nunally Johnson

[Based on the novel by John Steinbeck]

While watching “The Grapes of Wrath” we were told to take note of moments that seemed purely cinematic. Here are a few moments that, in my opinion, seemed to be:

Muley’s flashbacks—Those scenes certainly enhanced the story line but filming them as flashbacks was more of a cinematic inclusion. Muley could, just as easily, have spoken of what happened and detailed it in words. However, that wouldn’t have looked as nice. It also wouldn’t have had as much cinematic appeal if we had not been able to to see the house get bulldozed down.


The Tractors—This actually was also within Muley’s flashbacks but it was even more noticeable. There was a scene that showed multiple tractors with what seemed like an overlaying transition of a moving tractor wheel. Showing that repetitive image didn’t further the story at all. It was solely cinematic.


Ma looking through box of old belongings—While Ma was going through her box of belongings before departing her home, sad music was playing as she tossed her precious items into the fire. In addition, there was a great deal of focus and close-up shots on the items. This whole scene seemed as if its sole purpose to evoke an emotional response of sorrow from the viewers but wasn’t necessarily pertinent to the storyline.


Wind blowing cabin doors open & closed—I can’t recall exactly when this occurred; I think it was after the Joad family left their home. The wind blew the cabin doors open and closed. This definitely was purely cinematic.


The drive to California—Of course, as viewers we needed to understand the length and the hardships of the Joad’s drive so it was important for us to see it happening, but it was definitely a more cinematic scene than a narrative one. It almost seemed like a montage. We were shown the city limit signs along with other signs, which gave us a sense of location (i.e. “you now leave New Mexico; come again soon” and “Arizona welcomes you.”)

o   The sheep in the way of the car—this was a scene within the course of the drive. I don’t know if this was something specifically detailed in the book since I have not read it, but this also didn’t really benefit the storyline—it simply provided slight humor and looked good on camera.

The singing at the 50¢ camp + the dance—though these scenes were separate, both utilized music to show emotion and to help tell a story. Connie singing at the camp was something that I doubt could have been in the book (since you can’t really have a tune written in a book) so it was a cinematic choice.

Other thoughts: 

• Many times when I felt that the scenery looked like a set that you would see at the theater
• Through the whole movie I was "kicking myself" trying to figure out why Ma Joad looked so familiar. I finally looked it up and she was played by Jane Darwell who was also in Gone With the Wind. (I remembered her from that)
• Noticed the use of shadows many times throughout the film (i.e. the shadows of the characters after their home had been demolished, and a shadow behind Grandpa when he was talking about wanting spare ribs)
•  Overall, I liked the film...but it was really depressing.
• As I mentioned before, I haven’t read the book but I’ve spoken to a few people who have and from what I understand, the movie does leave out a lot of elements from the book.

_____________________________________________________________
1/31/12

“Midnight In Paris” Screening Notes:

We were asked to keep the question “what can films do that other mediums cannot?” in mind as we watched “Midnight in Paris.” Here are a few ideas that I came up with:

1.    Ability to have “art within art”:

Film is able to contain other art forms within itself in ways that many other mediums cannot. For example, the paintings by Picasso were featured both in Picasso’s studio and in the art museum. The music of Cole Porter was featured both as his character performed at the party and while Gil was at the record stand. Similarly, the historical characters and their respective novels were featured all throughout the film. You cannot truly have music within a painting or a novel nor can you have a painting or a novel within music. However, a film was able to contain novels, music, paintings, etc. There are many different alternative ways of looking at it but overall, film manages to have the greatest capacity to showcase many alternative mediums.

2.    Characterization:

Though words in novels can be used to describe a character’s mannerisms, appearance, and the way that he or she speaks, they cannot truly give such strong characterization as film. If we were to just hear the characters speak on the radio, we would still be missing the visual complement. Similarly, if we only saw the scene in a painting or a photograph we’d be missing the audible components. It is the combination of seeing and hearing that allows us to truly understand various character traits and personalities. With film we detect accents, styles of speaking, and subsequently are able to detect the difference between the dialects of the characters of the 1920s vs. those of the present (also Americans vs. French). We similarly associate the voices of the characters with their respective appearances. This was something that I noticed throughout the entire film. This made it easier to distinguish the “time jumps.”

 3.    Creating a sense of setting

     Film has a remarkable ability to create time and space in ways that other mediums cannot. Sometimes, it is the combination of establishing shots and “mood music” that allow us, as viewers, to be transported to a specific time and place. For example, we were shown shots of the Eiffel Tower while “French music” was being played. This gave us a true sense of location and allowed us to make the connection that we were “in Paris.” A great example of this occurred while Gil was wandering the streets of Paris alone at night for the first time. I took note of the music playing, the bell ringing, and how that all tied in with what we saw happening. This ability to create these settings also allows for “the unrealistic within the realistic setting.” It’s a lot easier to show these changes, the “time travel,” than it is to tell of them in a novel. Additionally, the fact that the modern scenes were all during the day and the 1920s scenes were all at night allowed us to differentiate between the two.

Other thoughts & such:

•  I kept thinking about the casting of Owen Wilson as Gil. I realized that it was a perfect fit because for the most part, we see Owen Wilson as this crazy guy who’s sort of goofy. A lot of people don’t take him seriously as an actor. Perhaps this preconceived notion of him as an actor translates to him as a character. Inez and her parents saw Gil as someone who was goofy and crazy (not to mention delusional). The way the characters perceived Gil is how we tend to perceive Owen Wilson.

•           I loved when Gil started talking about whether or not any type art can compete with reality. I felt as if the quote tied in with the question of “what can films do that other mediums cannot?” However, it’s more like…what can reality do that no other medium can? Here’s the quote:

“You know, I sometimes think, how is anyone ever gonna come up with a book, or a painting, or a symphony, or a sculpture that can compete with a great city. You can't. Because you look around and every street, every boulevard, is its own special art form and when you think that in the cold, violent, meaningless universe that Paris exists, these lights, I mean come on, there's nothing happening on Jupiter or Neptune, but from way out in space you can see these lights, the cafés, people drinking and singing. For all we know, Paris is the hottest spot in the universe.”

•      Less guiding of the audience eye—more of an opportunity for us to decide where we wanted to look, what we wanted to focus on.
•  I noticed a similarity of the male/female relationship between Inez and Gil and that of Paul and Madeline in “Masculin, Féminin.” Once again, the woman is…well, a bitch. Inez had no faith in Gil and she acted as if she didn’t care about him. She was distant and put herself first, going about doing whatever she wanted (having an affair). It reminded me of how Madeline acted toward Paul. She treated him as disposable. Similarly, Inez was concerned primarily about money, material objects (buying the fancy, expensive furniture) just like Madeline.
•  At first, I wondered if Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald’s relationship was supposed to slightly mirror Inez and Gil’s relationship—especially when Scott was talking about Zelda always wanting to go out and how that prevented him from getting his work done.
• Enjoyed the very natural shots of conversation. To me, the dialogue is one of the most important elements of a good movie. I felt that the dialogue was really able to shine in and it was complemented by the way many of the scenes were filmed. Also, with dialogue—I took note of the fact that movies can do one more thing that books cannot. When people are speaking, it’s easier for there to be simultaneous dialogue and interruptions. It’s hard to truly explain that three people are all taking at once and have it register immediately when reading a novel. It’s something that is better understood when it is seen and heard. (I noticed this a lot when Inez interrupted Gil to listen to Paul.)

_____________________________________________________________

1/23/12

Masculin, Féminin Notes:

First in my notes I'm going to talk about the breaking of the IMR rules within the movie. Here are 3 examples of various "rebellions":

1) First Scene (Paul & Madeline in restaurant): Breaking the Shot/Reverse/Shot rule

·  The characters did not remain on the same side of the screen so as to represent a conversation.

·      There were many moments when the camera was on Paul but Madeline was speaking (and vice versa.)

o   This made me feel like a listener rather than a speaker. Typically when the camera is on the person who is speaking, I feel as if I am involved in delivery the information. As strange as it might be, I feel as if I am the speaker. With the camera focused on the listener, I too felt like a listener. I felt like I was being addressed and that my purpose was simply to absorb the information.

·      Usually when the camera switches from person to person (shot/reverse/shot) it is coinciding with their alternating speech. The shot changes in the movie however, seemed to have illogical timing. There wasn’t an identifiable pattern for the changes. [I'm not sure how I feel about this but I do know that it was slightly distracting.]

·      Part of conversation was filmed showing both (or multiple) characters in a single shot. This is something that you don’t see as much in modern Hollywood films. I believe that this incorporates the concept of a wider shot. [I liked this because it gave the film a more real and natural feeling. It was less like a movie and more like reality.]

2)  Scene where Robert and Paul are in, what i think was, a breakfast place: Breaking the 180° rule.

·      Shot from various angles within the restaurant and did not stick to the 180° rule. [I actually liked the way the rule was broken. By truly moving throughout the restaurant at all angles, I saw more aspects of the restaurant's interior, thus making me feel as if I were actually inside. I felt more involved in the scene, as if I were a spectator sitting at a table or as if I were walking around the restaurant]

·      Additionally in this scene: Robert approaching the woman asking for sugar vs. Paul approaching the woman—(When Robert approached her we saw it, when Paul approached we only heard the dialogue but the camera was focused on Robert)

3) Scene in Laundromat (featuring Robert and Paul): Noticeable break of the 30° rule.

·      There was a scene cut for no reason—did not add to the story (or the attraction). Rather, it was distracting. Furthermore, it was not a scene cut that was used to change views from one character to another. The shot stayed focused on Paul, simply from a slightly different angle (one that I don’t believe was at least 30°).

Now that that has been addressed, here are my many other random observations and thoughts on the movie!

• Many moments throughout movie did follow the rule of establishing a shot. (Examples: Shot of building from outside, shot of people inside office, various shots of people walking in the street)

• I found many of the time jumps to be incongruous and confusing. I felt this particularly stood out in terms of Madeline and Paul’s relationship. In the first scene we see them just meeting. In their next scene together they are talking and Paul obviously expresses an interest (primarily sexual) in Madeline. However, all of a sudden, the next piece of information that we are given is given to us while Madeline is speaking during an “establishing shot.” She starts talking about how she’s glad that Paul is in love with her. At least towards the beginning of the film, there was no opportunity for us to see the concrete progression of their relationship in terms of defining moments.

• Interesting how much attention is paid to what the background characters are saying. I particularly liked the scene when Catherine, Madeline, and Paul are all at lunch and the shot changes to focus on a hooker and a man at lunch. They’re conversation about how he is German and how she dislikes Germans was humorous. 

• Thinking a little bit about the eyeline match rule—there were many instances throughout the movie where the eyeline seemed almost directly at us, the viewers. It created the sense that the characters are talking directly to us, responding to our thoughts or questions. Good examples of this throughout the movie are:

            1) The scene with Paul and Madeline in the bathroom

            2) When “Miss 19” is being interviewed.

• The bold words that would appear within the movie (as opposed to action on the screen) were interesting. Not sure whether or not I liked them or not though.

• My favorite line from the movie was when Robert said, “Ever notice there's the word ‘mask’ in masculine? And also ‘ass’?”

• Found it really interesting that they had a "film within a film" (scene with them at the movies).

• I really liked the song that played throughout the movie and additionally, I loved the scene when they were dancing to it.