-The scene that interests me most is the opening, establishing moment that conveys to the audience that while it looks like London, something is terribly amiss.
-It opens in a cafe where the huddled masses are all packed in, glued to the television screen. The place is a generic coffee house, counter in the front, small store area (a crappy generic place). Everyone is of different backgrounds and different races are represented but they all have the same expression of disbelief and puzzlement on their faces, staring raptly at the television screen plainly not doing what they came there to do (get coffee)
-And here comes Clive Owen's character pushing through them all but ignored except by the last woman who gives him a nasty look. He gives the change in pounds for his coffee and looks at the futuristic projected television screen passively. There is a CNN knock-off on-screen covering the death of the youngest man who is shown being mobbed by masses of people all trying to touch him. These people are of Hispanic persuasion and are all dressed nicely. There are stacks of cups and plates beneath the television and one of those antique espresso percolators. The walls are some hideous marine color cheezily inscribed with coffee words. He takes his coffee, nods passively, and shoves his way back through the crowd. He is dressed in a long black coat with fairly short hair and carrying the stereotypical paper cup of coffee with the cardboard sleeve around it. There are televisions in opposite corners of the store but the entire crowd, shoulder to shoulder, is staring at the one at the front of the store. The protagonist exists the glass door at the typical glass storefront. The shot has remained relatively the same as if from behind the counter, first catching him enter and shove through and then his back as he is leaving. Then the shot proceeds to follow him through the crowd and out the front door (which is open) passing directly beneath the monitor not being watched. He exits the store left and the camera swings right catching his reflection in the open glass door as a double decker bus and a scooter drive by. There are motorized rickshaws in traffic and the buildings are plastered their full length with futuristic holographic video displays of advertisements. The camera remains looking right as it exits the door, taking in the entire scene of busy traffic, architecture, and advertisements eventually panning left to follow him down the street. He had nudged by a policeman in the cafe and now a pair of them walk past him opposite on his left hand side. There is a huge pile of trash bags to his left. He pauses at a stand of newspaper vending machines (green) and sets his coffee down. All the while people are weaving in and out, crossing the street, seemingly at random. The camera continues even though he has stopped, panning around his back eventually ending up on the opposite side (technically in front of him). He removes the white coffee lid, takes out a stainless steel flask, and pours booze into his coffee. An explosion occurs and he staggers backward towards the camera and to the right, against the wall. One person was blown off of a bicycle into the street and two others next to each other dive in opposite directions for cover, one against the wall, one into the street. The camera jumps backward with Owen and he knocks his coffee over in the chaos, his right hand extended as if to block shrapnel. The camera them mimics a running effect, running towards the blast, over people still on the ground in shock. A hazy layer of smoke still remains, the camera proceeds, and we are able to see someone walking aimlessly holding their own dismembered arm--cut to movie title
I
Screening Notes: Hugo (Scorsessee)
-A lot of the landscape images seem to be doctored somehow, brightened, as if they were painted somehow=goes into what the article was saying about countless individual frames doctored [look it up]
-Definitely blurs the line between photography/painting= says of the film that they altered (tinted/painted) each frame one by one
-Definitely a statement about class going on here=station inspector sends poor little children to the orphanage which during the period were notorious for abuse/poor conditions
-The rich men use the trains and the guard makes sure they have no reason to complain which means anything they see as undesirable must be done away with
----hence not viewing orphans as social problem or an injustice and it being too unethical to simply kill them, they lock them away
-but is in the background, tertiary to the main plot
-Reference to Melies Voyage to the Moon=is blatantly obvious to anyone looking critically at this film that Scorsessee is toying around in similar territory yet his tricks are digital, not analog
-I don't understand the subtext of mechanics in this film-steam power, spinning gears, the works-->so wyat is the symbolism? How does the mechanical, the old order of machines, work with what Marty is trying to do?
-Potential symbolism=the images locked away in the box are possible metaphor for the format=possibilities of film are restrained, locked away waiting for new means of thinking
--part of Hugo actually tells the beginning of film as if this is a new beginning (3D) which itself used to be a "sideshow novelty" and so can 3d be used to tell stories better, in new ways
-On one hand mechanism is visually exciting=3d format needs to be justified in order to legit. the massive cost (this movie cost 170 million!)=visual stuff to pop out at you
-so the toy shop owner is George Melies
---what is the tie in between him and mechanism? Early film relied on very simple, entirely mechanical cameras
And the heavy focus on clocks, time, clocks clocks clocks everywhere, why?
I've seen this image before, the one in Hugo's dream
Screening Notes:A Single Man
There are two moments where we see a close up of the gun that he intends to kill himself with. While the gun is important and figures largely in the movie, the cinephilic aspect of the shot, the part that makes it curious is that it emphasizes the gun itself--the gun takes center stage which allows one to see that this is no ordinary handgun, it is the iconic Webley Revolver although in the first shot it is unclear which model (.455 or the .38 200gr)
--This establishes a certain degree of Britishness right off the bat; there is likely a reason for this choice as it is not some obscure Smith and Wesson or any other innumerable antique revolver but the easily recognizable iconic British service pistol used since the 1890's and up through World War Two. It is a true collector's item (it is in fantastic condition)
--The second shot of the revolver is similar yet it contains bullets in the frame. In the broader sense of the movie it completes the thought--a gun with bullets, a loaded gun, is an object of purpose (really only two purposes with his motivation being the latter)
This confirms that it is in fact the .455 Webley that was manufactured I believe up until the First World War. This gun is unquestionably an article of the past, an object that is diffuse with all manner of potential meanings such as British imperialism in the Boer War, yet here it is sanitary of these meanings--it is just a gun.
One line in the movie: "We always end up talking about the past"--he is haunted by his past, it has completely consumed his life and he intends to take this antique, this relic of the past to end the cycle.
--There is another moment where the camera pans by two men reading the paper on a sofa. The first man's paper reads "US Rusia Bog Down on Cuban Settlement (19:11). The shot:
--This paper tells us it is the height of the "duck and cover era" as is echoed in the line "We live in a world where nuclear war is a real threat". This is ironic in its reflection of a considerable hypocrisy that is touched on by the protagonist in his "fear" lecture. The hypocrisy of the Cuban Missile Crisis is that it was a Soviet response to the United States setting up nuclear missiles in Turkey but they never mention that part. We are told that this is happening later but this cleanly and simply sets the stage for the audience.
--You can tell a lot about a person based on the way they use space and his medicine drawer is no exception. Shot:
--When he looks out the back door at the end of the film he sees a Harvest Moon. =the Autumnal Equinox
--This is a point in which the earth is still on its axis--it is in the exact end of its angular motion. And so is our protagonist--his arc has come to an end.
Screening Notes:The Prestige
-There is an irony to a movie about magic tricks that uses special effects; both fool our eyes, fool us into thinking we're seeing something we're not=special effects, Lumiere, magic tricks, all tricks the same
-Plus tricks within magic tricks according to the needs of the industry=moment where we see the bird in a cage trick that disappears into the table. The bird looks real-it looks like they're doing the trick as presented but they could never kill a bird in a movie so there is a trick within a trick, a design within a design
-we're in on one lie but not another-seems odd
-Same thing with the fish bowl trick=someone or something else is manipulating the fish bowl (there's no other explanation) owing to a cut right before the prestige (something we're not seeing)
-Magic tricks as first special effects=entertaining amazement at our being fooled
-We know special effects are a trick but we don't care, we don't simply write them off as foolish tricks but rather superficially accept what we're seeing
-More irony=you must be careful what tricks (special effects) you employ because you could blow your fingers off-->Star Wars pts 1-3 the CGI special effects were garbage and we all hate them
-Must not overplay your hand yet similar to Angiers' first show where audience not impressed by what we've always seen so need to up the ante (balancing act)
-Here we have a magic trick of the cinema=the duplicate
-We know there aren't two Hugh Jackmans but we accept that there are two characters=we know but we don't dismiss it out of hand. Why? Because we went into it knowing it was a movie?
What is this mental process called?
[I don't know if you actually read these but I'd like to know if you do]
-Both characters are guilty of duplicity=Borden uses a double in all aspects of his life and Angiers in doubly lying to the audience (think its a trick/lie but is real=double lie)-->duplicity symbolism in pile of hats
-What to make of both characters reading each others' false journals? Both trick each other. What is the symbolism?
-And what is the symbolism of the bird?
-Its wrong. His final trick is unnatural because it isn't a trick and Applebee knows it which is why he seemed concerned.
-Like special effects we are conditioned to seeing things done a certain way, presented in a certain manner which is why we are so shocked when we see the real thing
-His outward mutilation is representative of an interior one-->marks the point of his being twisted by obsession
Screening Notes: Melancholia
--Moment where they arrive at the reception dinner
We are given a wandering gaze by the camera that focuses on different minute items as one does when taking in a scene for the first time
Our "eyes" pass from "Betty" to the table setting and over the gold silverware and plated food, resting on an embroidered napkin briefly
We are almost able to see the threads of the table cloth--close-in shows texture
Non-central details are briefly given center stage--cinephilic
Doesn't feel voyeuristic because it is not as if we're outside looking in--we're inside, we belong there and because we're present we naturally look at who's talking and eye-catching objects over looking in at an object of obsession: nothing to obsess over, important objects, simply things that catch our eye
--Some of what comes later feels voyeuristic not not this moment
--After her sister's reproach she begins, upset, to lay out specific artwork in books
Although she does it hastily and the camera gazes from image to image it is zoomed in enough or occasionally zooms in further, capturing the images, allowing us to see the m as if we're there, looking over her shoulder and "Oh, I see, but wait! she's laid out another!" and we have to move to see the next
We're not supposed to be in there yet we are voyeuristically shown what is valued by her as if we are allowed--are present
[Aside] Some sufferers of severe depression experience particular stabbing pangs of doom that while they last seem to undermine everyone and everything known to the sufferer; nothing matters if everything is fucked and this produces corresponding feelings of panic and emptiness at the same time for no justifiable material reason. Perhaps this is what is reflected by the planet threatening to crash into Earth
--Scene where Claire watches her sister nude by the river
Very voyeuristic scene because is from Claire's perspective but something about the way it is filmed emphasizes the color of nature and its clash with her light flesh
This contrast is intensified by the addition of her eyes in a close-up-->the colors seem more vivid somehow, perhaps some sort of effect
There is a similar effect in Claire looking at Melancholia through the hoop--the colors and textures of the planet seem unnaturally striking somehow
-(insects underfoot)
Screening Notes: The Hurt Locker
-Opening scene with the robot sets the pace for the entire movie as if it is an establishing shot for the aesthetics
-Jumpy quick zoom-ins as troops flood the square; obscuring close-ups on faces and objects with sharp sharp cuts between shots and typical intense music; it is of note that the robot seems odd or out of place in a war movie though this is perhaps because the majority of war movies take place in the past--potentially creates sense of oddity that sets this conflict and by conjunction the portrayal of this conflict as different/unique
-Formal structure/camera work effectively creates perception of chaos, intensity, confusion--of war yet the moment that follows it is rather calm, treated mundanely
-Effective portrayal of Iraq=brief moments of pitched intensity followed by extended periods of mundane boredom (portrayal of a different kind of war)
-Ambush/flat tire scene (sniper battle)
-I am not really interested in the firefight but rather the portrayal of the sniper battle although the firefight is part of the framing
-the silence of the sniper shot-no report, only see the impact
-They fire off into the distance (longer shot) in no place in particular (disorientation, confusion, tension)
-THe actual scene where they are exchanging at long range--they stay calm under immense pressure but the specialist does not; he is not in the line of fire but he his highly anxious, breathing hard: the quivering camera/ zoom-ins and zoom-outs creates a choppy feeling=gives the perspective of the character and the camera work is reflective of anxiety and confusion, the shaking of the camera potentially representing his pounding heart
-Discovery of the dead child (Beckham)
-He sees the dead kid-a dead bloody child we have been introduced to and possibly become invested in but it is not played up at all--nothing formally tells us that it is out of the ordinary (no special framing)
-Death is therefore treated like any other scene in this instance with no cues denoting any special significance [this is not true in the following scene where the Colonel-one of theirs-is blown up setting Iraqi death apart from US deaths]
-It is later shown that it matters a lot to the character but not the death in and of itself (no framing)
Screening Notes: Mi Viaggio a Italia (Rossellini)
-There is a scene that I kept coming back to as most relevant to this discussion of semiotics: the scene in which the two of them are sitting out on the patio after he has come back with refreshment and she is talking about the poet she knew. The shot I am interested in is that in which he calls her friend a fool (dismissing rather flippantly something she was discussing seriously) and she attempts to rebuff what he has said. The particular shot that I am interested in looks like this:
What is quite literally denoted is that the two of them, a married couple, are sitting on the patio to the house they have inherited having a sort of casual conversation.
2.) Connotation
Cultural Codes: In this kernel is encapsulated the entire conflict of the movie. She is trying to discuss something seriously, something that she cares about, and he is being rather dismissive--His eyes remain closed while she is talking to him which means he is not as engaged in the conversation as she is and the way she comports herself emphasizes a certain level of exasperation with her husband. The basic cultural connotation of this scene is that their marriage is not exactly going swimmingly. She is talking about another man that she seems to have once been taken with indicating an interest in other men over her husband.
Specialized Codes: A great deal can be divined from the manner in which this shot is set up. He is in the forefront which could indicate that we should look at this scene from a viewpoint reflective of his in which for him she is both literally and figuratively in the background although the two are sitting fairly close to each other. The mise-en-scene indicates that there is distance between them (in the relationship) yet the two are closely intertwined (because they are married).
3.) Myth Production
The underlying connotations of this shot seem to perpetuate the stereotypical unhappy marriage in which the woman is discussing at length things that she is interested in or passionate about that the man is not interested in and the man could not be truly troubled to listen to save his life. This is backed up later as the criticisms of each other fly out such as he does not think about anything but work and she never really tried and "all men are alike" and etc. etc.
Screening Notes: Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock)
-One moment that caught my eye was that in which, after swapping cars, she's driving through the night to voice overs of the other relevant characters figuring out her betrayal
-Very simple mise-en-scene: she is in a classic Ford (absolutely gorgeous automobile) which is about as wide as a park bench (very roomy) yet within this cavernous space the camera is fixed on a close-up of her face in the dimly lit space (glow on her face intended to be passing headlights): conveys a certain isolation and anonymity of "ships passing in the night" so to speak
-As the voice overs reach the conclusion that she has robbed them, her expression changes from pensive to a slight smirk indicating she thinks she's getting away
-Unique way to advance the story and convey a bit of the character (smugness) without the large amount of footage the voice overs equate to
-It begins to rain and we see the breakdown in visibility and her apprehension=everything becomes uncertain and unclear until the soft electric glow of the neon sign for Bates Motel shines through her windshield and her path is clear: all that remains in that moment is her and the motel
-Of course, on must talk about the famous shower scene
-She steps into the shower and all else is blotted out (noise of the shower; mise-en-scene restricts the audience to the shower interior) yet audience is not lulled into a sense of security or peace=extreme close up on the shower head and choppy cutting shot to shot of her in the shower conveys a certain sense of intensity to the audience
-Shot to shot stabbing increases this previously established intensity and her grappling effectively conveys her desperation and weakness; the mise-en-scene is shattered by the looming shadow behind the shower curtain--the audience is tipped off
-Shots of her grabbing (at the shower curtain) and struggling out of the tub in shock convey a sense of slowing, of her life force ebbing away: her death is symbolized as extreme close up of water going down the drain and established by the extreme close up of her lifeless eye
-Scene where he/she kills Arbogast
-The odd camera angle from above is a classic obscure horror shot (used extensively in original Resident Evil repertoire of infuriating angles) --audience sees him/her take him by total surprise
-Close up on his face as he backpedals all the way down the stairs is almost comical yet it reinforces well the expression of utter shock on his face as it seems to slowly shift towards something...I don't want to say acceptance but there is a shift in the character's mind
Screening Notes: The Grapes of Wrath
-This is an incredibly visually striking movie yet there is one scene in particular that caught my interest. Although it is not the most shocking of scenes (some are quite striking in that respect) but in terms of mise-en-scene it is most interesting in terms of the almost lack of it.
-Scene in which Tom talks to Ma about how he'll "be there"
Tom has a dramatic monologue with Ma in which when it begins it is a shot of the two of them talking and the background can be seen clearly although it is not well lit-conveying a certain sense of ominousness.
-It goes to his face for his dramatic "I'll be there" speech but when it does it goes to an extreme close up heightening the feeling of the audience and at the same time absolutely obliterating the background
-Shifts back to Ma and the apprehension is written all over her face: the back and forth between the pair is back and forth between extreme close ups where the background falls away and it is as if these two are the only people in existence in that moment--the director draws the audience's full attention to what he is saying and the manner in which he is saying it= the audience feels pulled to Tom
-When he is finished it pulls back out to a close-up of Ma and Tom reminding the audience that there is an entire world of consideration and that what Tom has just said has consequence and weight beyond just that little chat he is having with Ma
Screening Notes: Midnight in Paris--Woody Allen
-Uses establishing shots to the max--But more than just establishing, a feeling?
-Raining-Very Extensive=purpose; to show just how beautiful the city is, to give the viewer a feeling
-Moment in the back of the car (x2) [Initial and with Hemmingway]
-all very close, drinking, merry, shoulder to shoulder; get a better sense of space than simply a photograph or words on paper
-Sitting back talking to Hemmingway they are very close in proximity yet the feeling of a gap between them is very apparent
-Scene where he meets Hemmingway
-The exchange conveys such a sense of character through the inflection, tone, expressions that is a missing dimension when one simply reads or writes a script=acting/direction brings that character alive (Three dimensional) and reinterprets the persona to the image envisioned--gives one the image so actually requires less imagination on the part of the viewer (creative self-interpretation vs. witnessing someone else's reimagining
-Moment where he has a discussion with ?? (love interest) at the carnival
-Carnival with the countless dim round bulbs casting a soft glow on the characters, the music, the textures and colors with the lighting, the smiling faces and merry animation of all present
Truly gives a certain unique feeling that would be difficult to capture otherwise
Happens a lot in this film--one can be taken with a feeling
-Moment where the camera pans around the green room and the audience is given view to drink in the party and the atmosphere
-Animal pelts, smoky atmosphere, extensive taxidermy--feels like I'm watching Boardwalk Empire
Establishing scene in effect=another unquantifiable feeling; (needs more development but something there)
Notes for Masculin/Femenin
In what ways does Goddard break from IMR? 2-3 moments that strike you
-Opening Scene (in the Cafe)
Camera never centers on either primary character; don't get the sense that they are the center of the universe--a considerable amount of distraction in the background
-Protagonist makes his thoughts known on military service/the working man--important statements--yet the girl reacts little to this and nothing really becomes of it in the scene. [Thoughts not without purpose but without consequence in the scene--see his psychology but doesn't drive the scene] His deep thoughts go nowhere. Qualifies as a sparing exposition as we get a general sense of the characters but I stress sparing as the audience doesn't even learn their names.
-Scene where he follows her into the bathroom
-Defies IMR as it focuses on their faces for protracted amounts of time without interchange when each talks to the other as if they are on 60 Minutes or something
Loosely follows shot/reverse/shot but it is an entirely different iteration of the concept
Protagonist-Paul
Protagonista-Madeleine
Blondie-Katherine
Freckles-Elizabeth
*Laundry Room Scene
Shatters both 30 degree and 180 degree rules; occasionally the camera seems not to move at all between shots. Why the hell would that be necessary? Purpose?
Scene feels completely discontinuous/jumpy but why? Purpose?
Shot of both characters from behind while talking is also interesting
-Moments of Camera-Looking
In the scene where they're playing with the guillotine, Katherine not only looks at the camera but perceptibly seems to give the audience "a look" of some type which is not unnerving but strange--communicates directly to audience with a "look"
Scene where Paul walks out into the street-Stares at the camera for a seemingly uncomfortable amount of time
Sparing exposition (simple sense of characters)
-No rising action, no use of est. shot, no definable climax
Unfortunately long
Eroticism?
Problem: Goddard does some very interesting and, in a modern context, unorthodox things with different methods and presentations and the manner in which the scenes are linked together--it is a strongly creative film in many respects. The problem is that in expressing this seeming dichotomy in a strongly creative way Goddard based it on a weak, trite, hackneyed base story that is annoying in how blatant of a flaw it is in what is intended to be an avant-garde film
He likes her and she likes him
but he doesn't really like her
and she doesn't really like him
He likes her friend
Who likes him and blah blah blah blah
There is nothing exceptional about the story at base as it is simply one of many endless perpetuation of the same theme over and over again and I am ill of it. This movie is simply a remarkably elaborate rethinking of cinema with a hackneyed story at base
No comments:
Post a Comment