All About Eve, Film Form, and Genre Mixing

More than once in a while Turner Classic Movies airs a movie that I just cannot believe I’ve gone so long without seeing! All About Eve is one of these movies. For me it is essentially the oldest “someone is out to take over my life” plot-line movie I have ever seen. A plot that has been borrowed for many films and TV shows alike. In addition to this, the movie provides many examples of different types of film elements that blend to create a captivating story.  The film’s genre falls somewhere between a film noir and a melodrama and moves from the beginning of the film, where the viewer almost pities the hard life Eve has had and roots for her to get her big break in acting, to the end of the film, where Eve has shown her true evil nature and the plot turns to one of betrayal.

The film’s opening scene opens at a banquet in which all the guest are seated listening to a man give a speech about who they are all honoring that night. The film uses a reflexive style in that the opening scene is shown with what seems like a formal narrator doing a voice in which he speaks directly to the viewer. The narrator literally states “it is important you know where you are and why you are here;” this act of speaking directly to the viewer draws attention to the fact that they are watching a fictional film.

The film is similar to Citizen Kane in that it uses flashbacks from the point of view of multiple characters, but surprisingly none from the point of view of the title character. Eve never contributes her own flashbacks; the only time her past is explored is when she is being probed for information by other characters. In order to set up the flashbacks the film uses voice overs in an unconventional way in that each character whose flashback will be shown begins with their own voice over. Where All About Eve differs from Citizen Kane is that while viewing a flashback that begins from one character’s point of view, the flashback will encompass conversations and actions that the initial character was not present for. One character will initiate a voice over that fades into a flashback, but then they exit the scene and somehow the scene continues in what started out as their remembrance of the events.

While initially set up to be an innocent aspiring actress the film switches Eve’s female character role from that of the innocent female to that of a femme fatal. While all of her efforts to control men do not always work, and in the end she found out to be the conniving backstabber she is by one of the men she tried to seduce, Eve is able to manipulate those around her for the better half of the film to get the fame she has always sought.

While not intentionally stylized in this manor, the film exhibits some film noir style elements like those found in The Maltese Falcon. In addition to the use of voice overs and Eve as a potential femme fatal, the characters many times engage in witty dialogue with one another. In another style the film explores the genre of the melodrama while following Eve’s trail of deceit and lies about her past. The other main female character, Margo, experiences emotional turmoil as she starts to realize her career and possibly her romantic relationship is being endangered by Eve.

The two genres are blended together beautifully to create a film in which you find yourself identifying with one character and rooting for them at one moment, and the next moment hoping they will meet their downfall in the next scene. The acting is also wonderful in that the actors all play their parts well enough that you will begin to identify with them and try to figure out what their motivation is.

 

 

French New Wave Revival

French New Wave saw a revival in 2001 with the film Le fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain. The director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, used many of the elements commonly seen in original French New Wave films. The film revolves around one central character, the film was shot on location and the director in even pays respect to the original movement by having a french new wave film,  play in the background during one scene.

Character:
Le fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain focuses on a girl named Amelie who is living alone in Paris. Her life is changed forever when she finds a photo album in a railway station. The film focuses on her journey to find the owner and how he will change her life forever as she begins helping those around her. We follow Amelie on her emotional roller coaster ride through the film with the narrator often giving us insight into her feeling and emotions.

Location:
The film was shot on location with key locations in the film being real places in Paris. The cafe in which Amelie works actually exists and so does the fruit stand where Amelie buys her produce. Because of new technologies the film makers where able to shot in many locations around Paris giving a realistic feel to the film. They were even able to shoot in several railway stations around Paris, something they would not have been able to in the 40s and 50s due to the noise in the stations.

Le fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain is not a perfect recreation of french new wave cinema however. Jean-Pierre Jeunet uses computer graphics throughout the film to achieve shots that would not be possible during the original french new wave period. For example, in Le fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain a photo taken in a photo both comes to life and begins arguing with its self about the predicament Amelie is in. This would not have been achievable in the 50’s.

Do We Need the Premium Experience? – Part 2

NVIDIA 3D Vision Issue: You must use the Youtube.com HTML5 Video Player on Mozilla Firefox to view the 3D content with your NVIDIA 3D Vision glasses. You can access it at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XBJvf7CG1w&hd=1.

A follow-up to the blog post Do We Need the Premium Experience? Now I am asking the audience the question: Would adding 3D to classic films add any value to the film? Scenes from Citizen Kane, Lilo and Stitch, and Rango are included. Evaluate the 3D effect added to films from different eras. All 3D effects were created using Cybersoft PowerDVD software.

Please take a moment to submit your responses below. There is a poll for each film.

Utopian World In Children Of Men

Although Children of men represent a dystopian society however, many scenes convey a message of hope and faith to the viewers. Firstly, Kee reveals that she is pregnant in a cowshed which has a Biblical meaning attached to it. Luke’s narrative describes an angel announcing the birth of Jesus to shepherds who then visit the humble site where Jesus is found lying in a manger, a trough for cattle fee.(Luke 2:8-20). Infertility in women could be used as a metaphor for the fading sense of hope. Therefore, the birth scene, especially after 18 years, plays an important role. The baby brings hope just as Jesus brought hope to this world. Additionally, a black woman gave birth to the child. As far as we know, human life sprang out of Africa. There is also the notion that the future of humanity resides on the dispossessed hence, arrival of a baby girl could be considered as a new beginning.

Jasper Palmer (Michael Caine), a former political cartoonist and Theo’s friend has a well-protected house monitored by video cameras. He takes care of his wife and the world that he creates around himself is a perfect example of a utopian society. He proposes getting Syd’s help in order to reach the Human Project. However, the Fishes trail the group to Jasper’s hideout, but Theo, Miriam, and Kee get away as Jasper stays behind and he sacrifices his life to save his friends. Another interesting point is that Jasper says “Shanti, shanti, shanti” which is also a common beginning and ending to all Hindu prayers and is also mentioned in the Upanishads, and literally means “peace,” referencing the invocation of divine intervention and rebirth through an end to violence. Moreover, according to the Upanishads once the Earth has reached an exhaustion point in terms of population, natural resources, pollution etcetera it will be destroyed and the next yuga or era would come into existence.

The concept of the Human Project is also Utopian. To communicate with the Human Project means talking to someone who talks to someone and so on. This forms a network of information and there is no one representative, and thus no bureaucracy or hierarchy. The project moves around on a converted fishing boat called Tomorrow. The Christian resistance used the fishing boat as a means of communicating solidarity. Being fishers of men also indicates that they only cast their lines to catch the truly human into their group and not corrupt like the Fishers.

The last/boat scene of the movie is really important because it provides a glimpse of possibility of hope and it allows the viewers to invest their own sense of hope into the ending. On the row boat, the interaction between Theo and Kee suggests a Utopian kinship. Boat is a symbol of the church bearing the faithful to salvation. Moses who was a religious leader, lawgiver and prophet according to the Hebrew Bible and Qur’an was found on a boat by an Egyptian princess and Jesus preached from a boat in Lake Galilee. Additionally, the ship named “Tomorrow” comes to the rescue of Kee which implies that in the midst of problems like immigration, infertility and war there lays a glimpse of hope.

So, what do you think guys?

Michael Bay: Bad Boys 2

The film Bad Boys 2 directed by Michael Bay, came out in the summer of 2003, as the follow up to the original box office hit Bad Boys Several critics cited a particular tasteless scene involving a racial slur, one critic said that the film was “mindlessly fun… If you like this type of movie, that is.” However, the second film was a commercial success, despite being panned by the critics. I believe that the critics may have overlooked many of the technical achievements accomplished during the action sequences in this film. While I do tend to agree with the critics, that this film is not the greatest film ever, the action sequences in this film are rivaled by few.

The first car chase scene involves a grey Ferrari on the MacArthur Causeway in South Beach Miami, Florida. The scene features a large number of shots taken from outside and inside of the cars as they literally tear through the streets of Miami. Most of the shots are close ups on the cars themselves, and are point of view shots from cars within the chase. Close up on the actors’ faces during the chase are carefully weaved into the chase to add dialogue and personality to the scene. An establishing shot is used as the cars enter the causeway to show where the action will take place. After the establishing shot, the camera moves back a lot closer to the action. Many times the camera is following directly behind the Ferrari and seems to also barely evade danger by swerving. This type of shot must have been difficult to capture, putting the camera crew in the chase car in significant danger. However, the effect these close tailing shots have are suspenseful and breath taking. The shaky camera work and fast cuts makes the scene more disorienting but add pace to the action. The only noticeable drawback of this scene is its over the top explosions, and the sheer volume of wreckage make the action seem almost comical. Maybe it’s me, but this scene makes me laugh.

Another scene with that is technically impressive features a digitally stitched together tracking shot. The camera appears to circle two rooms separated by a wall. The camera buzzes through the rooms as the characters yell back and forth in a stand-off. The shot establishes the two small rooms where the action takes place, and the continuous shot allow for the audience to feel the passage of time during the stand-off. The shots are stitched together digitally as the camera appears to pass through bullet holes in the doors separating the rooms. The same technique is used in Children of Men to establish a new setting while keeping the passage of time constant.

Michael Bay may have a terrible reputation as a director. His movies are not full of colorful dialogue or intriguing characters. However, his action sequences are some of the most impressive ever filmed, and technical camera work in the film Bad Boys 2 during action sequences is fantastic.

What is the Difference between a Movie Producer and a Movie Director?

Many of the tasks of producing films seem rather confusing. While some people have specific jobs pertaining to control of lights or costumes, others have strange names like “Best Boy” and “Key Grip”. However, when movies are advertised, the people that are usually mentioned in the ads are writers, directors or producers.  One will hear about few writers usually.  They usually don’t get too much glory as far as directors and producers are concerned.  One name does come to mind when thinking of writers though–Aaron Sorkin, the writer of The Social Network.  I personally am not very knowledgeable about Hollywood writers, but Aaron Sorkin’s name is one that easily comes to mind.  A writer is obviously the person in charge of writing the script, but who are the other two?

Now for some definitions.  Wikipedia defines a film producer as one who oversees and delivers a film project to all relevant parties while preserving the integrity, voice and vision of the film. They will also often take on some financial risk by using their own money, especially during the pre-production period, before a film is fully financed. The producer is often actively involved throughout all major phases of the filmmaker process, from inception and development to completion and delivery of a film project.  However, an idea or concept for a film can originate with any individual, including a screenwriter, a director or a producer.  Also, a film director is a person who directs the actors and film crew in filmmaking.  they control a film’s artistic and dramatic aspects, while guiding the technical crew and actors.

Now that those definitions are out of the way, what exactly is the difference between the two?  It would seem that the main difference by pure definition is the financial risk involved.  While a Hollywood film studio might often take on the financial risk of a movie, at times the producer has to.  When one is a director, they never have to take on any financial risk.  A producer is there to try to deliver the writer’s overall message that was intended, but a director is the one who is actually there on set to make that vision happen through individual aspects.

While there are many methods of film directing, there are certain ones that seem to work better with producers than others.  Some of these methods involve outlining a general plotline and letting the actors improvise their own dialogue, such as in Ben Affleck’s The Town, or Spike Lee’s Do The Right Thing.  Another method entails controlling every aspect, and insisting that both the actors and crew follow the director’s instructions to the letter.  Two examples of this kind of directing is in Michael Bay’s Transformers or James Cameron’s Avatar.  And although there are many more kinds of film directing, one more notable example is when a director appears in his own films, such as in Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction or Jon Favreau’s Ironman.

In summary, movie producers and directors have some of the same responsibilities, but their jobs do have very stark differences.  What do you guys think the main differences between movie producers and directors are?

To generalize the movie Children of Men

To generalize the movie Children of Men

• Absence of cuts to create a sense of documentaryfeeling
  • Long takes
    • Lack of cuts as the camera follows the main character walks out of a coffee shop
    • Create a sense of reality
    • Wide shots
      • To establish the location outside of the coffee shop

• Sound effects
  • No music to start off, then the music gradually comes in …
  • Harmonious sound
    • Sound of the loud city – cars,
      • Lead the audience something may happen when the sound getting lauder and lauder.
  • Dramatically changes during the explosion

• No editing shots in the opening scene
  • A single shot with a handheld camera
    • Variety of camera angles
      • Eg :- when the camera comes out the shop, it pans away from the main character to show the world and then the camera pans back to the main character slowly
  • Creates a shaky effect during the explosion
    • Seems more realistic

• Color and Lighting
  • Gray, blue, and black
    • Makes the setting look very dirty and dull
    • Create dangerous and/ or scary feelings
    • All the characters wearing very dull colors
      • Shows sadness
  • Polluted city

The Evolution of the Long Take

The long take has evolved over the years much like film has. The structure of the long take has remained the same while the theory and the technology used to make it happen have changed. Two films that incorporate long takes and span the evolutionary timeline of the long take are the Maltese Falcon and Children of Men. These two films have famous long takes that while they have “uninterrupted” filming, the effect the long take has on the audience is different.

 The Maltese Falcon’s long takes were stellar given, when it was made. Many takes in the film were over 45 seconds long and required the camera to move. John Huston, the director of the Maltese Falcon, storyboarded the entire movie which allowed the cast to rehearse and shoot a scene with seamless flow. The camera at times tracked with the characters and followed them into the room. These tracking long takes were amazing given the weight and bulkiness of the camera equipment. The long takes allow the audience to get a sense of real time in the passing of events, such as the scene in which Spade is drugged by Gutman. The long takes of early film relied proficient acting and relatively still scenes.

 65 years later, Alfonso Cuaron in Children of Men “apparently” produced long takes which are up to 6 minutes and 20 seconds long. The long takes in the film are nothing short of modern technological marvels. Thanks to post production editing and elaborate camera riggings, scenes like the coffee house bombing, the car ambush, the birth, and the siege of Bexhill appear to be continuous uninterrupted film. By far, the most complex scene was the car ambush. The car itself had no roof to allow for the complex camera rigging and for the multitude of angles to be shot continuously. The shot was considered by many to be impossible and insane to attempt, yet the “shot” was made and achieved its goal. The effect of the long take in this scene is appearance of happening in real time which engrosses the audiences in the “climax” of the first half of the film. The scene also takes on the effect that the camera just happened to be on as the action occurs, the so called “documentary” feel. Cuaron’s daring style allowed for the departure from film convention of the long take.

While the long take has retained its structure and basic use in film, the possible meanings for the use of the take have expanded. This expansion has led director such as Cuaron to utilize the long take to its current full potential in Hollywood film. Since the early years of film, long takes have been cinematography challenges that directors have conquered. With the ever growing technology in the film industry, there is no telling what will be done with the long take. The question I have is: With the evolution of the long take, what will filmmakers do to add to the meaning of the long take?

Do Documentary Films Truly Make a Difference?

The documentary film is a film that seems to be happening more frequently these days, or perhaps as my interest in documentary films increases, I am more aware of them and it only appears they are happening more frequently.  Regardless, there is a documentary on essentially any topic one can imagine.  Not every single documentary is worth watching, but many are, and with advancements in affordable technology, and the sharing capabilities of the internet, anyone has the potential to create an account of whatever topic they deem worthy.  Many of these topics address issues present within society in an attempt to remedy them before it becomes too late.  But, do they really accomplish these changes they seek?

 

In regards to my personal documentary viewing, I tend to favor those with an expository feel (Bowling for Columbine is one of my personal favorites, despite the rampant splicing of speeches and subtle misleading Moore does throughout, I do believe he raises several good points in the film).  They generally feel more engaging and more informative, and as such, I pay more attention to and glean more from them.  Does this mean I suddenly have the desire to go out and fight against violence in schools?  Not necessarily.  I feel appaled, I feel upset, I feel motivated to think about the issues presented in the film, but I did not have the urge to leap out of my seat and begin fighting society for the greater good.

 

Does this mean all people react the way I do during a documentary?  Again, not necessarily.  It depends on the people who view it, the amount of positive press the film receives, and the organizations already formed that have the abilities to change issues presented in the documentary that people seek out to be a part of in order to ellicit change.

 

Most people have a limited amount of resources on hand; therefore, for a documentary to truly make a difference, an organization must already be in place.  If the film were showing the horrors of violence towards animals, people would start flocking to PETA if they wanted to change the situations presented to them in the documentary.  It would be very difficult to start a new organization, create a significant amount of members, generate funding, and then set out to pursue the changes desired after viewing a documentary.

 

For this reason, I feel documentaries rarely ellicit the changes that were desired.  Some do, but many others lack the organizational prowress to cause changes.  In the example I listed, Bowling for Columbine, the organizations mentioned primarily are corporations and the NRA.  But, if people began joining the NRA left and right, would that result in a positive change? Not at all.  If organizations were mentioned that hoped to reduce the amount of guns in America, or organizations focused on channeling the anger of troubled youth in a positive direction, then the documentary might have resulted in more changes in society. (There are other flaws within the film, as mentioned above, but still, one cannot deny this is an effective expository documentary).

 

Then again, I could be wrong, it could be a multitude of other factors preventing documentaries from having a huge impact that they seek.  Maybe it’s more than organization and more than word of mouth, maybe it’s a question of basic human motivation.  What do you think?  Does a documentary result in change?  How could this change be more noticeable?

Star Trek: The Next Generation Tackles McCarthyism

One of the things I have always hated is how Netflix rarely has anything I want to see. This changed recently when they finally added all of Star Trek: The Next Generation. I have hesitated on getting a Netflix account, but that announcement forced me to finally sign up. Because I really hate my GPA, I have spent the past few weeks doing very little besides watching Star Trek.

And thinking about how much better Picard is than Kirk

One of the things Star Trek has always done is represent current world issues in its universe. For example, the conflict between the Romulan Empire and the United Federation of Planets is a clear reference to the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. These two superpowers spend most of their time and resources preparing for a war that neither of them want, and they rarely want a conflict due to the mutually assured destruction in case of such an event. The paranoia on both sides is intense, and thoughts of conspiracy and spies run rampant. The events in the episode The Drumhead are a clear example of McCarthyism in action. The reckless accusations without evidence show what happens when paranoia takes charge of a situation.

Well, what happens besides women with strange foreheads coming aboard and handing out iPads.

In this episode, part of the Enterprise’s engine is destroyed in what appears to be sabotage and an admiral comes out of retirement to lead an investigation. It is also revealed that schematics of the engine were stolen by a visitor on the ship.

The very first idea thought is a potential Romulan plot to destroy the Enterprise since it is the flagship of the Federation. This eventually culminate into an investigation into different crew members on the ship. One crewman lies about the species of his grandfather. This then leads to the thought that there is a full blown conspiracy on the ship. Once the cause of the malfunction is found to not be sabotage at all, but a simple defect in the part, the accusation of conspiracy remains and the investigation continues.

An explosion? Clearly a simple malfunction.

This does not stop at simple accusations. No one on the ship is safe from inquiry. This is all done with words such as “If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide,” and “If he were not afraid of the truth, he would answer [our questions]!” These words and sentences have been used throughout history and are still used today as justification for investigations into individuals who have no evidence against them. Luckily, the investigations eventually stop after Starfleet Command discovers the admiral assigned to the investigation is not acting rationally.

The events of The Drumhead show what happens when the government censors speech, thought, and find everything to be an excuse to investigate innocent people. In the 1940s and 1950s, in response to the red scare, Senator McCarthy led the government of the United States in investigations against those thought to be “disloyal” to the United States. Hundreds of Communists were prosecuted during this time and thousands lost their jobs. In the words of Captain Picard, The Drumhead serves as a reminder that “the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think.”