Film Critique: National Geographic 2010 All Roads Film Festival

Critique

Film: Reel Injun (Directors: Neil Diamond, Catherine Bainbridge, and Jeremiah Hayes)

The documentary that I went to see at the National Geographic 2010 All Roads Film Festival was Neil Diamond’s Reel Injun.  Reel Injun is a documentary that informs its audience about how Native Americans were and are represented in Hollywood films.  Diamond, a Canadian First Nation Cree himself, takes his audience on a journey from 50 years back, looking at various western films that were made, and the images of Native Americans that were displayed to the country.  Included in the documentary were comedic happens to serious revolts, all pointed towards the notion of how wrongly portrayed the Native Americans (or Indians) were in Hollywood film all throughout history.

Before I saw the documentary, I honestly didn’t have much knowledge about Native Americans.  My knowledge about them came from all the stereotypes that came from film and stories told to me when I was little.  All I knew was that these people were:

• These people were here in America first.
• Everyone belonged to a different tribe, from war-like tribes to hunter-gatherers.
• They were forced on reservations.
• They wore clothes with feathers and different colors with facepaint-like decorations.
• They had a “war-scream.” (The ‘olololololololololololololo’ thing.)
• All the tribes had a stone-faced chief.
• Primitive.

What I expected to see was just that.  All the stereotypes that I learned, I expected to see and then be told that these were actually the wrong portrayals.  That’s what I expected.  I wanted to know who these people really were.  How do they live?  What do they look like?  Why were they portrayed like the stereotypes?  What is wrong about the stereotypes?  Who really are these people?  These were all questions I had walking into the theater to view the film.  Stereotypes, although they are wrong and improper, they hold a bit of truth to them.  It was because people saw a certain quality that rang true for a lot of one group of people that these images were born.  For example, there is a stereotype that “Asians are good at math.”  Although this is obviously false, it is true that Asian countries are superior in mathematics and other subjects than other countries.  Because their education is ahead, it’s no surprise that they are, in fact, a bit smarter than kids in countries such as the United States.  Thus, the stereotype that “Asians are good at math” or “Asians are smart” is born.  Not all Asians kids fit this images, of course, but it is not entirely false.  Therefore, I wanted to see how the other Native Americans are like, not the stereotypical ones.

Reel Injun focuses its attention on the Native Americans that lie under the surface painted by images created by Hollywood.  Diamond takes us on a journey across the North American continent from Canada to Hollywood, stopping at various landmarks on the way.  He visits the Black Hills of South Dakota and the deserts of Monumental Valley, looking over the same scenery that John Wayne did in his famous western films.  Diamond also interviews many fellow Native Americans, such as comedian Charlie Hill, and even filmmaker Clint Eastwood.  In his “rez car”, a broken down car that all Native Americans supposedly drive (according to stereotypes), Diamond doesn’t just focus on Hollywood, but also takes us through actual historical events that shaped the images of Native Americans.  The documentary is a pleasure to not just the eye and the ear, but also the mind as well.

There were effects used throughout the film, but not a lot.  There were never any unnecessary visual and audio effects that were used.  Sound effects were only used when necessary, such as a zing when something funny was said (I think), and there weren’t much visual special effects.  Interviewees were sometimes shown in grayscale, but nothing major and special.  There of course were effects used in the classical films that were shown, but it was never used during the interviews.  Aside from the classic films that were at times grainy and worn out (as they should be), the rest of the images were sharp and of high definition.  The filming of the documentary itself composed of various shots.  Most were close-up of faces of interviewees, but there were sometimes middle, long, and wide, establishing shots.  Chiefs and subjects were sometimes shot from a low angle, providing a powerful image and a feeling that “this person/object is important.”

The interviews themselves were fun to listen to.  The things they said all rang with passion for this subject.  Some people, such as poets, were very articulate and familiar with the portrayals, and others, such as comedians, made us laugh with their sarcastic comments.  What I learned through these interviews is that the Native Americans never were these stereotypical people that I expected them to be.  They look exactly like ordinary people, working ordinary jobs and living ordinary lives.  It is true that there were tribal Indians in the past, but once civilization became the norm and cities began to dominate the land, they adapted to become normal people.  They did still have traditional festivals, but they were like all the rest of us.  Those who weren’t regular were similar to hippies, which still broke the stereotypes that formed in the past.  I did expect the film to break the stereotypes that I had, but I didn’t expect to this extent.

The parts that I liked most were the interviews.  The opinions that were expressed really gave me and idea of the “real Injun.”  Comedians made me laugh, and poets made me think.  These words spoken in the interviews really showed how wrongly Hollywood was portraying these people.  They were no longer primitive beings, but intellectual, normal humans able to communicate and mingle with the rest of us.  They are able to melt into society, and be modernized themselves, but at the same time remain traditional with their festivals and rituals.  Everyone knows their own history, and hold loyal to it, which is what I come to respect.  These people, although they were ridiculed in films and killed for no reason, they held their head high and endured the pain.  Diamond showed a scene in a movie where the Indian was speaking some native language to an American, but what he was really saying were insults to the man.  Of course the American didn’t know what in the world the Indian was saying, so he never realized how insulted he was.  In this way, the Native Americans kept their head up, enduring the pain in their own way, and kept surviving despite all the discrimination that was pointed towards them.

There were several unfortunate aspects of the documentary, but they all share a similar line.  What I wished for the film was: if the film was longer, there could have been so much more stuff. The film really could have been longer.  I wished it covered more movies, more countries, and more interviews.  I wanted to see more important landmarks and I wanted to learn more about the real Native American.  Of course money was an issue and time was also another, but that was the only unfortunate aspect of this documentary that I can think of.  I would definitely recommend this documentary to my friends and family.  They should, and in fact everyone should, take the time to watch this documentary and discover who and what just is the “real Injun.”

Photo Critique: Fotoweek DC

Critique

Exhibition – Simply Beautiful: Photographs from National Geographic

“Selected from National Geographic’s archive, these photographs are based off the new National Geographic book, Simply Beautiful Photographs and make us ponder what creates beauty in a photograph.  Often one of these elements, such as light or palette, will stand out, adding a distinctive note.  How photographers compose and image can open our eyes to a multitude of beauties, things we could not have seen before the advent of a frozen moment in time.  Photographs give us visual proof that the world is grander than we imagined, that there is beauty, often overlooked, in nearly everything.”

That was the description of the exhibit on the Fotoweek DC website.  And as the description described, the photographs that I saw at the exhibit were: simply beautiful.  All the photos in the exhibit showed a sense of beauty.  In every photograph, whether it be artificial or natural, there was a simplicity to it.  Each picture was very simple in every way, and yet was able to fully show its potential in delivering a beautiful photograph.  Just like the title, they were “simply beautiful” in all its meanings.

The natural pictures (meaning the pictures of nature and living beings) were one “type” of picture.  They involved various colors and textures, and everything was “in sync.”  Even if a human being was in a picture of a forest, he looked completely natural in that environment.  Some nature photos were absolutely stunning.  A picture of a mountain and its reflection seemed as if there were two worlds due to such clarity in the reflection.  The framing of the picture had the reflection dominating more of the photograph, and it in fact made me wonder if the world was turned upside down, meaning the reflection’s clarity made me doubt that the world above the water was really real.

Another nature picture was of a little boy bending down from a rock to drink water from a river.  This photo particularly caught my attention for its serenity despite all the elements in the picture.  There were leafs everywhere (since it was in an untamed forest) and plants and nature dominated the picture.  Yet the boy seemed completely natural in that environment, and the green of the forest subdued the boy’s bright orange skin.  Although nature dominated the picture, the boy was in the center, giving him full attention while complementing it with the life of nature.  All the colors, textures, elements were in sync with each other to present a beautiful, yet strangely natural picture.

There was also another nature photograph of light coming through fog of a forest’s aerial view.  It may not have been aerial, but you were able to see from the top of the trees in the forest.  Either way, this picture was beautiful because of how it simply looked.  The light that escaped through the fog illuminated the tops of the trees, and casted shadows onto the fog of that tree’s color.  Meaning, the red tree casted a red shadow onto the fog because of the bright, early-morning sunlight.  Honestly, it seemed almost unreal because it looked like a painting of nature.  From a glance, it was as if God had taken the colors of the trees with his hand, and smeared it all in one direction onto the fog.  The appreciation of beauty that comes from how unnatural nature can be can be seen clearly in the photograph.

Then there was the artificial photographs.  These involved man-made buildings and architecture, but they did not lose in terms of beauty when it was compared to its natural counterparts.  One picture had a night scene of New York City engulfed in fog.  The scene was “painted” light purple, and although the fog was taking over the city, the skyscrapers stood tall and eerily lit up the world with its lights.  It gave off a strange and wonderful fantastical feeling.  It showed fantasy mixed in with mystery, and your mind wanders into its streets wondering what would happen in this situation when you stare at this picture.

Another artificial photograph was of a underground canal with holes in the roof.  Through these holes, light from the outside came beaming through, illuminating the canal.  I really liked this picture because of one thing: it gave form to something that we normally cannot see.  Here in this picture, we can see light take form.  We can look at this picture and point out “that is light.”  In normal life, we can just point randomly and say that “there is light here,” but we can never in this way see it take a certain form.  In the picture, we can see it actually take form as a beam that enters the canal, and lights up the world around it.  And yet the contrast of darkness of the underground and brightness of the light makes the beam of light completely noticeable.

There were other photos that incorporated both natural and artificial elements.  One photo had a monkey running across the field of grass in front of a Mayan pyramid.  The ruins in the photo have completely become a part of nature, despite being artificially made.  The nature elements of the photo — the monkey, the trees, the vines — all dance around the ruins without even a bit of uncertainty.  Nature is acting natural, and it shows us accepting an artificial building as part of its own.  It’s a scene of two completely opposites coming to terms with each other to create one coherent picture.

Another that incorporated both was a picture of the milky way over the maoi Easter Island head sculptures.  All the stars in the universe seems to have gathered to take this one picture, and the night sky is a spectacle that cannot be easily replicated.  The milky way features different colors and the stars are of different sizes, adding variation that rids boredom.  However, the maoi are simply looking out in a different direction, as if to not care.  The light cast on the sculptures puts emphasis on the white parts that represent their eyes, and these eye are looking out in a different direction, as if telling the audience that this scenery is nothing new to them.  Here, in this photo, the natural and artificial become one, with each being used to one another’s existence.  The angle and framing of the photo also makes it look as if the sky and ground has merged together, bringing more togetherness to the heads and the starry night.  Ironically, removing these statues would seem to make the photo even more unnatural.

The photography in the exhibition showcased beauty when, at least to me, when it is most beautiful.  It uses simplicity to emphasize how beauty can be found in basically anything that we see if we choose to see it.  Each photo is a still picture, and yet it seems that the objects in the picture could at any moment start moving as if there was no one watching.  Yet at the same time, nature seems to be posing for the camera.  Water seems to stop its movement to allow the perfect reflection photo to take place.  It’s as if nature is telling us to realize that there is something beautiful, so go look for it, because we will easily find it even in the simplest things.  This gallery shows us how far we can go with photography, and how much beauty we can capture within a single frame.  The photos in this gallery emphasize how anything can not only be beautiful, but also anything can be simply beautiful.

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.