Mise-En-Scene and Genre Deconstruction: Fantasy

About Fantasy

Fantasy film generally involves a character undergoing a mystical journey or experience, using supernatural and magical powers that are unlikely to happen in real life.  They defy the laws of science, unlike science fiction films that base their content on some level of scientific truth.  Some people describe this genre as “fairy tales.”  Basically, these are the stories with heroes pitted against legendary, fire-breathing dragons to save a princess.  This genre of fantasy doesn’t just exist in films, but is also widely used in books and games for their fictional attractiveness and interesting plotlines.

Films with fantasy have been around for over a century, with the earliest mixing science fiction with visions of the future.  Georges Melies’ Voyage Dans La Lune (A Trip to the Moon) was made in 1902.  It featured men going to the moon in surreal rockets with a satirical tone, criticizing the science world of the early 1900s.  Stop-motion animation was used in the early days to bring life to objects and beings that don’t really exist.  The Wizard of Oz, made in 1939, used costuming to allow characters to move with better flow.

In the 1950s, special effects were put more into play by famous special effect “wizards” George Pal and Ray Harryhausen.  Pal won awards for his effects, from the visuals in Destination Moon (1950) to the adaptation of H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds (1953). In his directing career, Pal put together effects to show inhuman beings such as Morlocks and Elois in The Time Machine (1960).  Harryhausen’s work included a giant radioactive octopus in It Came From Beneath the Sea (1955) and UFOs destroying the United States capital from the finale of Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956).

Special effects came to help aid fantasy even more as the years went on, helping George Lucas and Steven Speilberg to produce countless blockbusters such as Star Wars and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial in 1977 and 1982, respectively.  These films had more exotic aliens and spacecrafts, and even entire worlds as shown in the Star Wars trilogy.

As technology increased, so did the imagination of producers and the ability to bring those ideas onto the big screens.  Movies such as The Lord of the Rings (2001~) brought back the more traditional storylines with wizards and hobbits and magical rings.  By the 200s, technology has advanced so far that these abstract creatures can be shown to look completely realistic, as if they can actually exist.  Films such as The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter (2001), and The Chronicles of Narnia (2005) consist mainly of computer graphic images, with humans being the only un-generated figures.

Fantasy can allow directors and producers to present moral values in unique ways.  From simple messages of bravery to dark messages of death, different films, through imagination and fantasy, can deliver different messages and values.  It can be a way to escape the realities of current society, and use fantastical strategies to show flaws of these societies or show the importance of them.

But perhaps the main aspect of fantasy as a genre is that it allows the audience to take fantastical journeys with the heroes and heroines in the film.  In The Wizard of Oz, the audience is taking the same journey as Dorothy as she walks down the yellow brick road.  In epics such as The Odyssey, we travel with Odysseus on his long trail back to Troy and his struggles.  This genre allows the viewers to experience supernatural occurrences, when they cannot do so in the real world.  By this definition, some authors describe fantasy to be the “mise-en-scene of desire,” with viewers being able to experience their true desires, real or not.

Mise-en-scene

Classic (1930s ~ 1970s):

The first clip is from the film The Time Machine (1960 version)

[0:00 ~ 4:00]

This scene from The Time Machine is the scene where George goes down the shaft to rescue Weena and the other Eloi.  Here he finds out that the Morlocks eat the Eloi, and so George decides to help the Eloi by using matches after finding out that the Morlocks are sensitive to light.

The beginning of the clip shows George in a dark cave.  The lighting of the scene shows the fright of walking into an unknown, mysterious place.  The camera follows George, showing his entire body, and always has him in center.  The cuts that show how big the caves are, then coming back to George alone, show how large the setting is, which adds to the fear that is felt, and also how lonely George is at the moment.  He must rely only on himself, and it creates a larger mystery of the setting shown.  George’s actions show carefulness, with him slowly walking and checking his surroundings.  All these aspects create a mysterious atmosphere full of fear and creates that feeling that something hidden in secret is about to be revealed.

Then the movie surprises the audience and turns that mood of mystery and tension to pure fear.  The camera all of a sudden dollies forward into George’s face as he realizes the skeletons and bones that resemble eaten Eloi.  The lighting of the scene puts light on George so we can see his full expression, and the lights behind him are lit red to give a sense of evil or bad-ness.  This scene changes the mood from tension to pure fear and devastation of the Morlocks’ real purpose for the Eloi.

The following scenes show George back to cautiously wandering the cave, trying to figure out what is going on.  But this time, adding to the fear, there are Morlocks hiding and waiting for a chance to attack George.  The Morlocks are hiding behind walls, and are framed so that they are seen from a distance, with lighting that makes them completely black except their glowing eyes.  This effect shows how mysterious they are, both to George and the audience.  It also gives off the feeling of lurking evil and danger, slowing creeping up on George.  George, on the other hand, seems to sense danger, but cannot see it.  His head barely moves too look around, only his eyes.  It shows just how cautious he is, trying not to move so much to draw attention.

When George finally gathers the Eloi in room, he realizes that he and the Eloi are cornered in.  We see that on the other side of the curtains, the Morlocks are slowing approaching the camera, which is now looking in George’s point of view.  Only the curtain separates the Eloi and the Morlocks, and the cuts going to and from the Eloi point of view and the Morlock point of view creates tension and suspense.  Again, the lighting on the Morlocks make them completely dark, with only their eyes glowing and looking at us, coming closer and closer.

Near the end of the clip, we see George using matches to keep away the Morlocks.  Without speaking a word, we can also tell that the Morlocks are sensitive to light because when George lights a match and shows it in front of the camera, the entire screen is flashed with a bright light.  After the audience covers their eyes from the bright light, we see the Morlocks doing the same exact thing.  George does this a second time, and the same thing happens all over.  After the flash subdues, we see George holding the match under a red filter, making everything red.  Presumably this is from the Morlocks’ point of view, and we can then tell that the Morlocks sense danger from the light, given from the red filter, and from their reaction to the light (which is similar to the audience’s), we can tell that they are sensitive.

All of these aspects show how aspects of the mise-en-scene adds to the overall mood of the scene itself.  It’s made even more apparent if you realize that the scene involved almost no talking by George or any other characters (except his thoughts on realizing that the Morlocks eat the Elois).  Through lighting, space, costume, acting, and decor, we can have a great idea of the mood in this scene.  We can feel the fear, tension, suspense, and danger that it presents to us.

These also show how the mise-en-scene contributes to defining fantasy as a genre.  George’s cautious actions tell us shows us an unknown and mysterious world, filled with beings that don’t exist.  The lighting and setting, such as the smoke coming from the weird structures lit in different colors, also show a world full of mystery and lurking danger.  George takes the audience with him through his journey into the cave, and our fantastical desires of wanting to save the Eloi (as well as exploring the new setting) are made into reality in this scene, further defining the movie as “fantasy.”

Contemporary (1970s ~ present):

The following is a clip from the movie The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

[2:25 ~ 6:45]

This is a clip from the first film in the Chronicles of Narnia series, and the first time that a human from the current world visits Narnia.  The children (Lucy, Susan, Peter, and Edmund) are playing hide-and-seek, and Lucy finds a wardrobe to hide in.  She closes the wardrobe door and keeps backing up until, to her surprise, she walks into a snowy world.  She walks around until she meets the faun Mr. Tumnus and they interact.

The beginning of the clip shows a contract dolly of Lucy as she walks towards the wardrobe, and a dolly forward in the direction of the wardrobe in Lucy’s point of view.  They are both slow movements, making the motion of Lucy approaching the wardrobe to seem cautious and full of mystery.  When she approaches the wardrobe, the camera is shot from above looking down, emphasizing the size of the wardrobe compared to Lucy.  Before, the shots were in Lucy’s eye-level, making the wardrobe seem larger looking up, but it is then turned to the wardrobe looking down at Lucy.  It puts more emphasis on the difference between the size of Lucy compared to the size of the wardrobe, and vice versa.

Once she enters the wardrobe, she closes the door slightly, keeping a small crack open so that she can see outside.  For a brief moment, she looks outside, and we only see half her smiling face.  To me, it seemed quite scary, but it shows how hidden she is, seeing that the space around her was black, and the space itself was compact.  She then walks backwards until she hits the tree branch with snow.  This part where she is walking back is emphasized by cuts that dolly away from the wardrobe door in Lucy’s perspective, slowly becoming overcome by the coats around her.  There is also a dolly looking at Lucy, as she walks back slowly, fearing that possibility that she might be found by Edmund.  Lucy herself is being overwhelmed by the coats as she backs up continuously.  There is also a cut that shows her from above, emphasizing how far she is going back, and how the coats are increasing in number as she walks back.  Lucy’s facial expressions show that she is slowly becoming more concerned, as her playful smile starts to disappear and turn to worry.  She is probably worried about Edmund coming to find her, but there also seems to be a hidden worrying feeling that she is going far too deep into the wardrobe.

Next we look at until she meets Mr. Tumnus in the snowy forest.  Once she touches the branch covered in snow, the camera takes on a new angle from behind Lucy, with the audience themselves looking at Lucy from the world of Narnia.  There are then cuts of Lucy looking out in glee towards the newfound world, but then also cuts of her looking back at the wardrobe door, slightly opened.  We see this in Lucy’s point of view, and we now see how distant we are to the real world, and how far into Narnia we all are.  As the camera follows Lucy venturing into Narnia, we see the dissolving portal back to the real world, only emphasizing, again, how far we all are into the world of Narnia, and away we are from the real world.

Lucy then comes to a lamppost, glowing orange.  Its orange glow is basically the only color that we see in the scenery of white (other than Lucy’s clothes), and instantly attracts both Lucy and the audience.  We also see how far high up the glow actually is as Lucy approaches the lamppost, and as she curiously looks for clues, the audience also looks for solutions as to what this place actually is.

Then, there is a noise that makes Lucy turn around in surprise.  The camera quickly shows us the forest from a high point of view, exposing much of the forest.  We are then shown Lucy’s perspective as the camera pans around the forest searching for what really lies in the forest.  Much like the scene in The Time Machine where George is cautiously walking around the cave while the Morlocks hide in the darkness, we see Lucy cautiously looking around while Mr. Tumnus comes closer and closer to Lucy’s location.  After seeing each other and jumping behind the tree and lamppost in terror, they slowly come out to face each other.  The characters’ actions are both slow and steady, with each of them slowly taking steps toward each other.  While this interaction is taking place, there is also a gradual increase in the size of the lamp glow.  When Mr. Tumnus was coming closer and closer to Lucy, the glow only covered Lucy, as if to protect her.  But as the faun and the little girl started to come closer and interact, talking in a nervous manner, the light slowly began to engulf both of them, as if to signify a creation of warm friendship in a cold, seemingly uninhabited world.

Again, there is not much talking in this scene, and so we see the importance of mise-en-scene in setting the mood of the scene.  The difference of the lighting between the real world and Narnia tell a lot about the scene.  The real world, to Lucy, is a dark and boring place, but the bright snow gives a new, interesting feel filled with mystery and excitement.  The glowing orange of the lamppost shows warmth and the attracts interest, being the only thing colorful in the scene.  The space also goes from tight and crowded to an open, unknown world full of adventure.  The costume of both characters that appear, in a way, show their innocence, with their simplicity (especially Mr. Tumnus who only has a scarf).  The acting creates a feeling that something big and new is going to happen.  Mr. Tumnus’ uneasiness towards Lucy creates a feeling of nervousness and a bit of tension between the two, which is slowly being loosened as they interact and also as the orange lamp glow starts to light them both instead of just Lucy.

The mise-en-scene also helps to show how fantastical this scene is.  The setting itself is magical, turning from a dark and crowded wardrobe to a new, bright, mystical, snowy world full of possibility.  Our desire, along with Lucy’s, to escape the grasps of the old boring world and enter a new one is made true through Narnia.  We want to further explore what really lies beyond the snowy forest, and we are drawn to the glow of the lamppost.  We walk with Lucy and share her excitement and wonder as she walks through a new magical world, and we experience the same fear that something is lurking close to us.  Lucy is curious as to what kind of supernatural creature Mr. Tumnus is, and so are the audience.  The scene takes us from the ordinary and leads us to extraordinary; from a country house to Narnia.  We are able to live out a fairy tale, or, in other words, a fantasy.

References:

http://www.filmsite.org/fantasyfilms.html (Pages 1 ~ 3)

http://www.findmeanauthor.com/fantasy_fiction_genre.htm

http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/17284/2862

http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Criticism-Ideology/Fantasy-Films-THEORY-AND-IDEOLOGY.html

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine_(1960_film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia:_The_Lion,_the_Witch_and_the_Wardrobe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise_en_scène

Lumiere

This is our Lumiere Film using a digital camera (by Brandon and Dio):

The camera is a bit shaky because of wind and a faulty tripod.

CRITIQUE

On our own film:

At first, we were planning to film people going in and out of the metro train, but then we learned that it was against the law to do so.  Therefore, we took the next best thing, which was filming people coming in and out of the station itself on the escalators in front of the Tenleytown station.  What we were planning to shoot was people coming in and out at the same time.  We soon figured out after we set up the camera that it was not going to be as easy to fully capture people going in and out simultaneously.  We decided to choose one, and at first we were leaning towards shooting people going into the metro, seeing that we could calculate when they were going down the escalators by studying the AU shuttle bus.  But we ended up actually filming people coming up the escalators, since the train seemed to have arrived first before the shuttle bus did.  It was raining, and so we didn’t want to keep the camera out in the wet weather too long, too.

Despite some flaws, we (at least I was) were happy with our film’s overall look.  I thought we were able to capture a similar scene to the people coming out of the factory in the original Lumiere film.  It also helped me to realize how some people could find “normal life” to be entertaining that they can watch it for a long time.  There certainly were some interesting stuff that went on in the film when we looked at the video later to cut it.  I just wish that would could have had a steadier tripod so that our film wouldn’t give off that “this-is-being-filmed” feeling that takes the audience out of the realism of the film.  Other than that, I thought it was a good film, and I particularly liked the bad weather, because that gives a different look to people than when they live their life during a sunny, good day.

To show the class what we filmed was an interesting experience.  Looking at all the films made me realize both how long and short a full minute was.  In terms of how the class reacted to our film, in all honesty, I did in fact like how they were laughing at some parts and enjoyed our film.  They may not have liked our title or framing, but I think we did a good job overall.

Someone Else’s Lumiere:

I chose Alex and Sarah’s Lumiere film with the fountain.  I liked their film a lot, because of the unexpected appearance of the squirrel in the middle.  It had a different number of moods also.  At first, we see peace and serenity from looking at the water continuously pouring down the rocks.  It’s a peaceful mood that makes the audience feel more relaxed.  But then, all of a sudden, there’s energy when the squirrel comes and runs up on the rocks.  The sudden movement and appearance of the squirrel makes it almost seem fake, but that’s what makes these Lumiere films interesting.  It made me realize that something so ordinary such as a squirrel on top of a rock can seem so interesting when viewing a bigger scene for a certain amount of time.

I think the reason they were able to capture such energetic motion during a time of peace was through the fixed camera.  We saw some of the films being shaky (even ours), and I can see a big difference of impact between a fixed camera and a shaky camera.  The colors also helped, as the squirrel’s color matched the colors of the rocks, making its appearance more dramatic and something we couldn’t really see until it poked its head out from behind the fountain.  There was a single aspect that could use improvement, however, which was the length of the film.  Although the manifesto states that it is a maximum of one minute and therefore doesn’t need to go the full minute, I believe that the film may have been more interesting if they used the minute to its full advantage.  Like I said before, I was able to feel how long one minute really is while doing this project.  Comparing 30 seconds to a minute may not seem like a big difference in our everyday life, but I realized how short 30 seconds can be after watching these films.  If they used the whole minute, I think that their film could have been greatly improved, and there would be more to talk about after the film finished.

Lumiere Manifesto Critique

Critique

I do agree with the Lumiere Manifesto in some aspects, but disagree with some as well.  I do agree with the statement that “film lacking context and artistic modification in any way beyond perspective, technology, and equipment is essential in an era of unrestrained, theatrical Internet TV.”  It is true that modern television and film uses a great deal of editing and technology, and it is important to sometimes have a simple film such as a Lumiere video that uses natural footage to show natural life.  Nonfiction can bring us back to appreciate reality in a world where fiction dominates Hollywood.  However, I disagree when the manifesto explains that Lumiere films bring a “collective” consciousness and a “universal” view on existence.  I don’t believe that any style of film can present itself in a way that forces all of us to think the same way.  No matter how hard a director tries to simplify a piece of video, there will always be different interpretations depending on each person.  There is no universal view or collective consciousness.  It is basically impossible when there is a countless number of words to serve as adjectives, and there is an even greater amount of eyes that view the same film in different ways.

I do agree that it is more meaningful to a viewer when he or she must think about a certain film, solving his own mystery rather than having it directly told to him, especially when nowadays everything is served to us on a silver platter.  I don’t agree when it goes on to say that it is only truly meaningful when it is in this form, because to those who cannot understand in the short 60-second span, they may need assistance to find true meaning.  Not all persons are leaders.  Some are followers, and need some assistance in directions before they find their own way.

As I read on with the manifesto with mixed feelings, I became confused when it stated that “the value of the moving pictures are in their potential for a multitude of interpretations.”  It’s contradicting itself from its earlier statement that Lumiere films aim to produce a “collective” consciousness and a “universal” view.  A multitude of interpretations may cause a rejection of the world that they share, which goes directly against their desire for a collective acceptance.  A personal relationship between the viewer and the video through private screenings have the risk of breaking a collective understanding and a cohesion between viewers.  A general viewing would have a better chance at a more cohesive interpretation of the film.

Lumiere pictures requiring no zoom, effects, or edits is also something that I don’t necessarily agree with.  There are some things that can be achieved in a positive way through zooms or pans.  It can allow viewers to focus on aspects that they can’t really see.  It can also allow for the camera to act similarly to the eyes of a human being, focusing on certain objects just like a human being would.  And even without these effects, a simple camera angle can change the interpretation of the film completely, and if Lumiere films require a simple clip of absolutely nothing to allow the viewer to interpret the movie for himself, then there should also be a requirement for the camera to be parallel to the horizon in order to reduce the risk of changing beliefs through camera angles.

Is it possible for a film to truly be “realistic”?

I believe that it is possible for a film to be realistic.  But first, we must define what “realistic” really means.  According to dictionaries both online and text, realistic means “interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical.”  In this sense, it is possible for any movie to potential be “realistic.”  The movie 2012 can be considered realistic by the fact that it is based on and interested in the end of the world by 2012, which many believe to be practical if they believe in the Mayan calendar.

The online article we were given to read constantly attacked the murder films of today, but although they are not the majority of the murder crimes that occur in real life, they may certainly be real enough by what they are based on.  These movies, although dramatic, are based on those rare occurrences of killing-spree murders, and are very realistic in what various killings happen.  Just because they are made more than normal heart-attack-death movies, doesn’t make them less realistic than they may be.  The author of the article should know the rule of “quality vs. quantity” before bashing movies genres that made in mass numbers.  The article itself seems to be tilted towards a certain viewpoint the way the author goes on to attack even books, calling dialogues and quotes “made up” and “fake” when he hasn’t even been at the interview in person.  Before he goes on to attack directors and other authors, he should look up the definition of “realistic” and then determine whether movies nowadays are realistic or not.  I do give it to him when he says Independence Day is not realistic, but not everything made in Hollywood is phony.  Some are based off of real events, and just because they are made more in numbers, does not take away any points off of realism.

Therefore, I believe that films have the possibility to be realistic.  If it successfully recreates reality based off something practical, then it can be considered realistic.  It may certainly not be real, but it can be realistic.  Even reality itself sometimes does not seem real.  We see some extraordinary things everyday, and even filming Lumiere films, where we attempt to capture life as it is, we occasionally come across a rare instance of something different and out of the ordinary.  And yet it is real.  It is not fake, it is real.  And if, for example, a movie is made based on that extraordinary experience, then that movie is indeed realistic.  It may not be real to many who cannot believe something like the events in the movie actually happens in reality.  But it is based off of that extraordinary situation, and it should be considered realistic.  If pictures can be realistic, why can’t moving ones be?

Next time we see a movie that we can’t help but exclaim, “That can’t happen in real life!” we should think twice and try to imagine a real life example of it.  Many movies are inspired off of actual experiences.  That movie we thought was impossible may actually be more realistic than we thought.  Who knows?  Government secrets seem to be at an all-time high these days, and in today’s society where, literally, anything is possible through technology, it may actually be harder for something to be unrealistic rather than the other way around.

Photo Manipulation Critique

Critique

After reading the two articles, I certainly have more intense views on photo manipulation in the media.  I already knew that there was photo manipulation in magazines and almost every other form of media today, but I didn’t know that it existed in history.  It was interesting to look at the Abraham Lincoln picture and the Kent State University picture in the “Photo Tampering Throughout History” article.  I didn’t know photographs were being manipulated by world leaders to show that they no longer have connections with certain people.

There certainly is a problem with photo manipulation in media.  It could be used to sell images that are not necessary to young adults, outlined in “The Illusionists” article, but it can also hurt people’s images as well.  The photo of Sarah Palin holding a gun half-naked can definitely hurt Palin’s image and her popularity.  Invoking emotions of viewers with photographs are fine, but I don’t think it’s the right thing to do manipulate photos to invoke a certain emotion.  It seems like manipulating not just images, but also people’s emotions.  There is also a problem of an identity loss.  Photoshopping a person’s head on a body that isn’t his/her own forces him to lose his identity.  That picture is no loner a picture of that person, but a whole new individual; someone who doesn’t even exist.

What we can do to possibly combat this problem is to hire more people to check these photos that appear in magazines.  We need more people like Professor Hany Farid, who decides whether photos are fake or not.  The more people we have in this industry, the more “innocent” photos get, and it also allows for the technology to tell fakes and reals apart to advance and be up-to-date with the advances of photoshopping.

However, I highly doubt that we can do anything more to help this problem.  Airbrushing and manipulation has been in the works since the 1800s, and nothing has changes two centuries later.  We are still doing the same altering of images, and even further now with computer generated images enhancing hairs in shampoo commercials and skin on babies.  Those who spend their lives altering images will always find a way to get around the experts who spot the mistakes.  They will learn, and they will improve with photo manipulation as technology advances.  There is also the “disclaimer” method, where in a small caption, they actually say that the photo is digitally altered, except it’s so small that no one notices.

But most of all, we viewers ourselves are getting so used to digitally altered images that we can’t tell apart the real and fake unless it is so drastic.  Our eyes are now so used to the idealistic and fake hair in the shampoo commercials, that even if we see them on the television, we don’t see anything wrong with it.  Perhaps, even if technology advances enough that we can easily tell apart fake images and real ones, our eyes will be too manipulated already that we will not notice anything anymore, no matter how fake.  By then maybe the news agency won’t even care about “faith”, because our brains will be also be manipulated so that we will basically anything.

Photo Manipulation

I made two collages from my photo essay, and I didn’t know which to choose, so I decided to post both:

Collage 1:

Collage on Elm Street

For this collage, I decided to use the stores in the Elm Street photo I took, and in each big, open window, I put the rest of the pictures in the photo essay.  I applied some photo filters to make the pictures match the stores’ lights, and I also cropped the picture to make it an almost panoramic picture.

Collage 2:

iPad Home Screen

My second collage involved taking the iPad home screen (since I went to the Apple Store) and replacing seven of the icons with scenes from my photo essay.  The supposed name for the icon for each picture is now a caption for the picture.

 

Photo Essay and Critique

Photo Essay:

The story is about my trip to and from the Apple store in Bethesda for some cords and cases that I needed to buy for my iPhone.

 

Photo #1

I began my trip from Anderson Hall, where the AU shuttle bus always stops.  This is a photograph of the bicycles chained to fences in front of the clothes donation box.  It is next to the shuttle stop, under the dorm hall building.

Photo #2

This is the photo of the shuttle stop itself.  It took a while for the bus to get here, and an even longer time for it to leave the stop.

Photo #3

I finally got to the Apple store after a couple hours.  Choosing the right case and cord out of so many choices took a really, really long time.

Photo #4

When I left the store, it was already dark.  It really was a nightmare to get to the store and choose a product.

Photo #5

Walking through some of the streets in Bethesda to the metro station was a bit scary.  There are scenes like this, where everything around a door is dark, except for one lone light.

Photo #6

Eventually, I found myself back to the Tenleytown metro station.

Photo #7

Finally, tired and exhausted, I walk back down the stairs to my terrace-level dorm room.

Critique:

Photo #1:

I like the Photo #1 because I was able to frame the bicycles and donation box between the two brick columns that hold up the building.  I was able to frame it so that the emphasis of color goes to the color of the bicycles and the yellow of the box in between.  What I don’t like is how I wasn’t able to fully center the image.  It seems to be weighing a little more to the right, and it, in a way, throws off the balance of the picture.

Photo #2:

I like how I was able to capture the different colors of the two posters and the blue newspaper holder.  Each has a different, vibrant color of its own, and I was even able to frame the red poster with the butterfly within the frame of the shuttle stop.  I don’t like how it is on an angle, though.  Looking back at it now, I wish I had taken it from a more straight-forward angle so that I could see the rectangle of the frame better.  Then again, I wouldn’t be able to see the light blue of the poster if I took it that way.  I do wish, however, that I took the picture earlier in the day, when the colors would be more vibrant and bright.

Photo #3:

Again, I like the different colors of all the cases and boxes that were on display at the Apple store, and I especially like how the Apple employee in the back, with his bright blue shirt, fills that empty space.  What I dislike is the angle.  I wanted to take it (like Photo #2) on a more straight-forward angle, but this time the limited space in the store prohibited me to do so.  If i had taken the picture like that, other objects would be in the way, and cropping the picture wouldn’t make it any better.

Photo #4:

I enjoy looking at this picture because of the different colors of the lights from the stores in the background.  And even though the lights are bright, you are still able to see the “Elm Street” sign in the foreground.  I still wish that there were more colors other than white in the picture, and I wanted to fill that empty sky at the top, or add something a little bigger on the left side of the picture, since the two poles dominated the right side.  The description “it was a nightmare” was supposed to be a play on “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, by the way.  I did like that.  I thought that was quite clever.

Photo #5:

With Photo #5, I was able to capture the eerie side of the night life with the single light source over the door, but the picture isn’t as vibrantly colored as the other pictures.  I wanted more than the color green in the photo, and I also don’t really like the reflection of the light in the wall next to it.  It makes it seem like there are two light sources in the picture.  I do feel like I was able to recreate Eggleston’s style well in the picture, however.

Photo #6:

I like this photograph for its subtle framing of the “Tenleytown-AU” sign in the background.  The column that shows all the stops of the train, the ceiling (which is really the underside of the floor of the second floor), and the platform helps to frame the sign well, I think.  What I don’t like is how the colors are a bit dry and washed-up, and not as colorful.  The subway is dark, and when I tried using flash, the background was pitch black.  Despite the problems taking the picture, I like how there is a connection throughout the entire photo, from the red dots on the column matching the red lights on the platform, to the words “Tenleytown-AU” matching the words on the column.

Photo #7:

Photo #7 adds emphasis on the red on the pipes, but frames the small blue sign in the middle so that you can focus on that as well.  I think this picture also captures the style of Eggleston better than some of my other photos, because the white background also emphasizes the bright colors of the red and blue.  I just don’t like how it seems all “crunched” into the picture, since Eggleston’s photos are more large-scale.  Even his picture of the red ceiling looks like it has more room, but because I took it from the stairs in my dorm hall, I didn’t have as much space as I usually do to take a picture.  It ended up being a bit tight-fitted and too close-up.

On Emulating Eggleston:

I found emulating Eggleston’s style of photography to be quite difficult.  It was harder than I thought it would be.  His use of color, framing, and balance throughout the picture was something that I found to be a lot more difficult that I expected.  I definitely wasn’t difficult to take the picture, but it wasn’t easy to have it match up to Eggleston’s style.  My digital camera is obviously different from his, which makes our pictures come out differently, but the framing and balance was still hard to emulate in his style, even with modern technology.

On Improvement:

Since Eggleston is known for being able to see the complexity and beauty in the ordinary world around him, I refrained from using Photoshop to enhance my pictures.  I wanted to capture them in their regular image and states, rather than changing their colors artificially.  Some improvements that I could make are to better capture those vibrant colors.  A lot of those colors seems to get washed up and dry when I take them on my camera, so perhaps I can take them from a different angle, or use different settings on my camera.  That I can even be able to better balance my pictures, or change the framing of the object.  I may even be able to add some fill to open space.

Newfound Appreciation?

Although I found it a lot more difficult to take good pictures than I expected, it didn’t necessarily make me appreciate artists more.  I knew professional photographers before, and some of my friends are into photography, so I already knew how difficult it was to take pictures.  I already had a high appreciation for photographers, and this never really raised the bar to a higher level.  I didn’t surprise me, either, that it was harder to take than I had expected, and it certainly didn’t take me by surprise that some of my pictures were horrible.  It’s not like I don’t appreciate these artists and photographers, but there really isn’t any new appreciation from this.

William Eggleston

William Eggleston is an American photographer, born July 27, 1939, who is most known for is use of color.  He is also known to be the largest proponent for color photography as a form of art.  From the beginning during his childhood, Eggleston was interested in the visual arts, collecting postcards and cutting pictures out of magazines.  He got his first camera – a Leica camera – in 1958 and  began experimenting with color in 1965.  Eggleston discovered dye-transfer painting when he was teaching at Harvard in the early 70s.  Mostly used for commercial works, the color saturation and the quality of ink was overwhelming to Eggleston.  Traditional black and white print was the norm in those days, but Eggleston broke through in 1976 when he showcased his pictures at the Museum of Modern Art.  His was the very first one-person exhibition of color photography in the history of the MoMA.  It helped him to create connections with Andy Warhol and his circle, allowing him to evolve as a photographer.

Eggleston’s photography concentrates on the vibrant colors of ordinary objects and scenes of everyday life.  From street signs and store entrances to dogs and animals, he ties his work together with the saturation of color in his prints.  His audience claims that he sees the complexity and beauty in the mundane world around him.  The vibrant colors and the weight of their meanings are what gives his works of art life and beauty.

This photo, which was also used as the cover for his book “Spirit of Dunkerque” is one of the photos which I found really interesting.  The deep color of red demands the attention of the picture, and yet its framing of the buildings behind it leads viewers’ eyes to the backdrop.  Just like in the readings, it has an asymmetrical balance that even though the building heavily is weighted on the right, the framing of the background buildings are able to balance it out.  There is also the use of harmony and contrast between the curved lines and straight lines, which adds to the overall togetherness of the picture.

This photograph of dolls on top of a Cadillac hood is also an interesting one.  The repetition of the figures and dolls, but at the same time having variety, makes us ask ourselves, “What is going on here?” and draws our attention to it.  Again, the use of colors is the main in the picture, as the bright colors of the dolls and their clothes contrast to the cool blue of the sky and car.  The brightness of the dolls are in a way trapped between the blue of the sky and car, which again serves to grab attention, and making the photo more interesting.

This photo, named “The Red Ceiling,” has not only the interesting aspect, but the powerful aspect.  Eggleston himself talked about the color in this picture, explaining how the deepness of the red makes it seem as if the ceilings and walls were painted with blood.  Indeed the red is powerful, as told in the readings, and it demands attention from the eyes.  However, Eggleston brilliantly places the white wires so that we trace to the center, where we can also focus on the light bulb in the center.  The lines, in a way, create symmetry, and it helps to make sense of the picture out of the chaos that is born from the red paint that dominates the photo.  Every part of the picture fights for attention, which is why this photo is such a powerful one.