Abstract Film and YouTube

I found Stan Brackhage’s “Mothlight” to be a film that was short but had an interesting message. “Mothlight” questioned the idea of what film was. Brackhage used a dead moth as his subject for the short film. However, instead of filming the dead moth, he crushed it into the filmstrip. This produced a film that was a bit confusing for the viewer. Brackhage’s “Mothlight” makes the audience question the way film examines its subject. Most films manipulate the picture in front of them to create a narrative. Many would argue that this narrative, which provides a narrow scope for viewing reality is often mistaken as absolute reality by mass audiences. Brackhage’s film shows the moth in fragments, an altered piece of a real moth. It’s almost as if Brackhage directly alerts us of the falseness of the reality we see in film.

            YouTube has undoubtedly changed the face of film, particularly experimentalist film. The span of viewership crosses across countries. For experimentalist film, this trend means that artists have a venue to have their voice heard. What one person films in their backyard can be seen millions of miles away. I’m sure that this trend has been to the delight of many young film makers, but I think the philosophy behind YouTube is even more in sync with experimentalists. YouTube is essentially about the experience, about sharing experiences. It’s about how the viewer feels. The viewer is allowed to interact with the video: like it, dislike it or comment it. The viewer can watch a video from the comfort of his own home. These ideals are at the core of avant-guard film philosophy. These abstract films want to teach through feeling, concentrating on the spectator’s reaction to what’s on the screen rather than what’s actually on the screen. Again, this echoes with YouTube, a site where a seemingly pointless video of a double rainbow can hit thousands of views within hours. These viewers don’t really care about the double rainbow, they watch for the reactive emotion it produces. Therefore, YouTube is unconsciously encouraging experimental films just in the very nature of its site. Viewers are subscribing to experimental, abstract, structuralist, and surrealist film philosophies without even realizing it. 

Disturbia Extra Credit Post

          In both Disturbia (D.J. Curaso, 2007) and Rear Window (Hitchcock, 1954), the main characters witness strange ominous events through a window. Both characters become obsessive in finding out what their mysterious neighbor is hiding. Both also suspect the neighbor is guilty of murder. The two movies present a similar plot in different ways.

         Hitchcock relies on suspense and delay in Rear Window. Almost the entire movie is shot from one point of view, that of Jeff, played by Jimmy Stuart. We feel his sense of entrapment because we too are stuck in the same apartment with him. Hitchcock slowly builds up the climax. We never really know if Jeff is right or wrong until the end of the film. The pace is slow. Hitchcock reveals one point at a time. We as viewers are left to piece together these moments. We see a flash of a knife, a suitcase, and a strange phone call. Never do we see any blatant signs that indicate murder.

         Curaso’s Disturbia takes a very different approach. Unlike Rear Window, Disturbia is filmed in a typical Hollywood fashion. The actors are considerably younger, and the suspense is limited. Curaso does everything but spell out the answers. The signs of murder in Disturbia are more blatant, more direct. We never really doubt that the neighbor was not a murderer. Everything is very cookie cutter-esque. The plot follows a line that is somewhat predictable and does have some suspense. However, this type of suspense is not of the articulate and poignant manner of Hitchcock. Instead, the suspense in Disturbia is more characteristic of a slasher film.

         The two films seem to echo similar themes about notions of privacy. In my opinion, Rear Window is a lot more thematically driven while Disturbia is more driven by plot. The theme is somewhat explicit in Rear Window. In the same way that Curaso spells out the plot, Hitchcock spells out the theme. For example, a scene that directly points to this happens mid way through the movie, when a neighbor’s dog is found dead. A dramatic monologue points to the seeming aloof nature of such a close quarters. All of the tenants are stuck in their own private worlds to the point that their own neighbors are strangers. Jeff’s position however demonstrates an alteration of this notion. Jeff knows everything about his neighbors, but still is disconnected by his position in private quarters. In Disturbia, this theme of privacy is not all that evident. The only vestiges of the themes seem unintentional. In Disturbia, there is no parallel scene for the dead dog monologue, a decision that I believe was a terrible mistake on this adaptation.  
         Both Disturbia and Rear Window also feature main characters who are stuck in their private quarters, forcing them to spy on their neighbors for entertainment. In Rear Window, we don’t get a lot of back story. We know the bare minimum about Jeff’s accident. We only know what is relevant, in this case. However in Disturbia, Curaso overkills the back story aspect. We see an accident in which Sam’s father is tragically killed. This propels Sam to hit his teacher at school because he made a remark about his father. Hence, Sam is sentenced to house arrest. Curaso must make his character feel isolated, which is admittedly much harder to do in a modern setting, so he constructs ways for Sam to lose certain TV and computer privileges. Thus, Curaso’s narrative feels much more messy and constructed than does Rear Window, which feels seamless and more natural.

         Both Curaso and Hitchcock employ a similar plot, but the way in which they tell their stories bring drastically different results.

A Serious Man Screening

A Serious Man is a Cohen Brothers film based on the biblical book of Job. The brothers use nonsensical, unrelated events to illustrate a theme that is largely left up to interpretation of the viewer.

The first 15 minutes of the movie is somewhat unrelated to the second part of the film. In the discussion following the screening at the Christian Study Center, it was noted that this section of the film helped to establish a sense of uncertainty. Though few could put into exact words how the first part of the film directly tied to the rest of the movie, many recognized it as a compelling element in the open-ended plot. Some drew note to the fact that the woman in the opening scene seemed to emphasize their cursedness.

There were many Biblical allusions in the film which included references to Bathsheba and the book of Job. The relation to the Biblical book of Job is interesting because the Cohen Brothers take the overall structure of the Book of Job but add their own twist to it. In A Serious Man, there are three Rabbis that the main character goes into see. Two of the Rabbis give Larry nonsensical or naïve advice about his life crumbling around him. The last rabbi does not even see Larry. Instead, Larry goes to three outside friends for council. It was debated who exactly these friends were in the film. My interpretation was that the three friends were the lawyer, the neighbor, and perhaps the tenure worker at his office.

A final topic of discussion worth mentioning that took place at the Christian Study Center revolved around the character of Marshak, the final rabbi. Marshak only speaks to the bar-mitzvah boys and is very old. His office, when we finally enter it, seems to resemble a Holy of Holies. In the office, there are bugs in jars, religious paintings, and other mysterious objects. Marshak seems to embody a divine like character, but as a personified divine character, Marshak is soft-spoken and does not seem to be directly connected. However, getting to Marshak is very much a focal point for the plot despite Marshak as a character’s seeming disconnectedness.

Just as an interesting aside, the fact that the Jewish teacher could not open the door to the synagogue when the tornado is about to hit may symbolize the Cohens’ belief that religion is inept. 

Blog Assignment: Film Criticism Today - A Single Man

Review Used: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/feb/11/a-single-man-review

     This review by Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian is a bit puzzling. Bradshaw gives the film a three out of five star rating, but his review does absolutely no critiquing. In fact, if you were to read the review without seeing the star rating, you would think that A Single Man is an absolutely perfect film. I think that Sontag would approve of this review because Bradshaw focuses almost exclusively on form rather than content. He is mesmerized "poignant, deeply compassionate portrait" that Ford creates. For Bradshaw, it seems that the only purpose of the content of the film is to cater to the form. While Sontag might agree with this method of criticism, for the reader, it is a bit frustrating. Though Bradshaw does give a brief plot synopsis, the content is just sort of an afterthought for him. The small sections that he does mention content, however, Sontag may have issues with some of his unsupported interpretations. For example, he mentions that the wide open, glass house is meant to be a direct contrast to George's inability to open up to the outside world. While this may be intended, Sontag would disagree with such a subjective interpretation. All in all, Bradshaw makes few of these interpretations. Bradshaw concentrates mostly on praising the film's visual appearance and the performances of Colin Firth and Julianne Moore. I would like to have seen more concentration on the content in this case. While the form is very artistic in A Single Man, the content is equally as artistic and, therefore, is deserving of at least some form of interpretation or criticism.

     Out of the three parts of mis-en-scene, I believe that the composition element moves the film along more than any other element. The type of shots used and different camera techniques give this film a definite style. The movie feels sleek, clean, and polished in a very artistic way. The cinematography in A Single Man is certainly the most obvious element in the movie. Ford uses saturated and desaturated shots to convey a deeper meaning. For example, whenever a positive moment happens in the movie, the film changes to a more saturated coloring, denoting that there a certain emotional significance that accompanies these moments. These moments, in the end, convey the idea that some moments are worth living for. The cinematographer also employs different type of camera shots to echo the themes of the film. There are several scenes that use high-angle shots. These high-angle shots are positioned in an extreme way in some cases. For example, the scene where George is sitting in the bank, the high-angle shot is used to hide the identity of the girl that approaches him. The use of high-angle shots emphasizes the vulnerability and loneliness of George. We feel sorry for him because we are at a place looking down on him. Ford also uses slow motion in several scenes to emphasize a certain attribute in the scene. One example of this technique is seen when George watches the young men play tennis. The slow motion in this case makes us uncomfortable and has sensual overtones. The uncomfortable feeling we get in this scene parallels George's inner conflict. He feels guilty for having lustful thoughts because he is still getting over his lover. There are many more examples of cinematography as a technique to move the plot along in this film. We the audience are truly captivated by the sleekness in this movie. It does seem similar to a glossy magazine cover, but it keeps us hooked and even gives us clues to the deeper meaning of the film.

Blog Assignment: Enigma and Delay in Psycho

Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is a horror movie that 

sets a precedence for later movies to follow. The enigmas posed in the movie vary and shift in emphasis about forty minutes into the movie, after Marion, our perceived protagonist, is brutally murdered. One could interpret the primary enigmas of Psycho in a couple of different ways. One could say that the preposed enigma is what will happen to Marion and the stolen $40,000. However, for the intents of this blog, I will focus on another enigma that the film imposes. This enigma is that of the relationship between Norman Bates and his mother. We, as the audience, deduce that Norman's mother, Mrs. Bates, killed Marion that fateful night, and therefore, she becomes a perceived antagonist. We are intrigued by this character because we know so little of her. The syuzhet is created in a way that reveals little pieces at a time about this character. We know that she is ill, but not how ill. We know that she is a murderer but do not know her motivations. Eventually, as the plot unfolds, we learn more and more puzzling information about Mrs. Bates. We learn, for one, that Mrs. Bates died seven years ago, but are again confused when we see Norman carrying the body of his mother to the fruit cellar. We do not know the real answers to the enigma until the very end, when we discover that Norman Bates and Mrs. Bates are one and the same. The delay of information about this relationship indicate that this is an enigma, but the lighting techniques and dialogue also serve this purpose. Psycho contains many scenes that are veiled in shadow. For example, we never completely see the face of Mrs. Bates until the very end. The dialogue also directs us to ask questions. One scene that remains the most poignant in my mind when it comes to this specific enigma is the scene where Marion and Norman talk in the parlor. This scene is a delay that both positions and formulates the enigma of the mother-son relationship for the rest of the movie. The conversation between Marion and Norman starts out as pleasant, but we get the feeling that there is a disturbing attribute to some of Norman's remarks. He talks of taxidermy, stating, "I don't like the look of beasts when they're stuffed... I think only birds look well stuffed, because they're kinda passive to begin with." This quote seems innocent on the surface, but after the fabula is revealed at the end, we realize that the line also alludes to Norman's passive disposition that contributes to his downfall. Perhaps the most telling line about the enigma is a line about his mother in the same scene. "A boy's best friend is his mother," quips Norman. This line forces us to evaluate this relationship. We gather that Norman is fully invested in this mysterious character, and we wonder how this relationship will play out, because it is clearly important. We also note Norman's behavior during this scene. At some points, particularly at the beginning of the scene, Norman seems interested in Marion romantically, but at other points, particularly when he is being questioned about his mother, Norman appears defensive and hostile. This behavior entices the audience to think about what secrets Norman is hiding. 

(The full conversation of this scene can be found here.)

In my opinion, Psycho is a bit of a mix between a readerly and a writterly text. There is one definite answer to some questions. It is clear that Norman and his "mother" are the same person, and that Norman, under the influence of his alternative personality, was the killer. However, there are certain aspects that are also left up to interpretation. The psychological aspect of Norman's condition, are not as black and white. Did Norman do this to himself? Is Norman's passive and awkward nature at least, in part, to blame? We don't know why his alternative personality was so polar opposite from both himself and a typical nature of a mother. All of these theories and questions are left up to the audience to think through and interpret for themselves.   

Full Metal Jacket Assignment:: A Review on a Review

http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1987/full-metal-jacket/

The above link corresponds to a review written by Eric Meyerson of filmcritic.com. The review is interesting and informative. The review is useful in some aspects, but lacks in others. The way it is written resembles more of an excited fan than a movie critic at some points, using the word "insane" three times in the first three sentences. You can almost feel the author's passion about the film through the writing. The author gives the film high critiques and aknowledges some aspects of the films theme. The first and the second to last paragraphs offer the most in regards to analysis and opinion in regards to theme. Meyerson picks up on the absurd style of the film but doesn't harp too much on that. He simply alludes to these larger overarching themes and style every once and a while. Most of the review is a plot synopsis, but his writing indicates that he did grasp some of the more subtle nuances of the film. All in all, Meyerson's review is helpful in deciding whether or not to see the movie, but does not offer much deep analysis for those who have seen it.