Just in my lifetime I have seen technologies change over and over at an increasing speed. With a question like how have new technologies changed the way film is understood today? The answer I would have to write down is a hundred and eighty degree rotation in content. I would have to say the same thing I hear in class all the time and state that before the special effects came along the story would have to have been written with more depth and talent. Now a days if you have a weak plot you can veer the audience away from the holes in your story with an explosion or two, take Transformers 2 or many of Michael Bay’s films for an example. Movies with deep stories like ‘Chinatown’ and tight one liners like ‘It Happened One Night’ were replaced with special effects and week plots.
Another new technology that changed the way film is understood I would have to say television and home video would be the biggest to me. I would have to say as long as I’ve been alive I can remember the multitude of changes made to home video. From BetaMax to VHS, then to Laserdisc, Divx Disc, Digital Versatile Discs (otherwise known as DVD), HD-DVD, then to Blu-Ray Disc. Throughout this constantly changing media one thing is for sure, it has changed how we watch movies as a society. Instead of watching a movie as a social experience, it is now a private one.
With that statement out of the way I can transition into the second part of the question, What influences are digital technologies and home theaters having on the way films are watched and appreciated? Again I have to state that as long as we have went to the theatre as a species we have done this publicly. Now a days we can watch films in the quietness of our own private existence. One of the good things with digital, which by the way was suppose to be cheaper all around but the price keep creeping up, people now have the ability to choose from a greater selection of films out there with video on demand and Netflix. Even in rural places where they don't have a theatre or if they do it only brings in the blockbusters - the viewer that enjoys lesser known or independent films can rent, purchase, stream, and even download what they would like for a movie.
There are always good and bad to everything I guess. The Home Theatre is killing the Movie Theatre, Red Box and Netflix is killing video rental stores and the studios are trying to kill them all and make movies eighty to ninety dollars apiece to purchase like back in the 1980's. The only thing that is for sure is no matter what we write here does not mean a thing in this ever changing industry, and as long as someone is losing money gimmicks like 3D will pop in from time to time. In the long run what it boils down to is the stuff we learn today will be completely different from what our kids will learn taking this exact class when they are our ages.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Post-Classical Cinema
From what I gathered to define “post-classical” Hollywood is also to define “New Hollywood”; dubbed by the press, and “American New Wave.” In my readings I have discovered they are all one in the same. They started in the mid 1960’s with films like 'Bonnie and Clyde'; which was the first film I saw Warren Beatty in after discovering how cool he was in Dick Tracy, and 'The Graduate'. I have never seen this film but that will change this week. The New Wave form of movie making seemed to fizzle out by the time I was born in the early 1980’s. This form of movie making started with a new generation of young film makers that rose from the transition of the ‘classic’ studio system in Hollywood to introducing subject matter and styles that set them apart from the studio traditions.
"Post-classical cinema" is a term used to describe the changing methods of storytelling of the "New Hollywood" producers(1). These new generations of producers differ from the original because they are film school-educated Hollywood filmmakers. There were breakthroughs in film technology around this time that enabled filmmakers to shoot in 35mm easier and since location shooting was cheaper because no sets were needed to be built, location shooting was becoming more viable and had the effect of heightening the realism and immersion of their films.
Later on during the 1970s, these filmmakers upped the ante with films often featuring anti-establishment political themes. They were increasingly depicting more sexually explicit content and sexual freedoms deemed "counter-cultural" by the studios. Furthermore, they started using rock music for the first time, gunfights, and battle scenes that started including graphic images of bloody deaths. The most memorable sign of the times in the movies made around this time in my opinion would be the many figures of this period openly admit to using drugs, such as LSD and marijuana.
I feel that the driving factor of this style they hoped to achieve while making their films was revolution. This couple of decades from the 1960s to the 1970s was person exploration and general loosening up. Everything seemed so tightly wound prior to this time period. No one talked about certain subjects and popular culture was so edictally dull that these new film makers wanted to break out and shake things up. This was the time that popular culture and society as a whole was evolving to what we know of today. Of course there was the 80s that introduced crude humor in their comedies and sequels to the classic of the decade passed, but mostly everyone was just on coke. The biggest thing I remember from the 1980s that effected movies was the invention of the VCR. The funny part was that the movie studios tried legal actions to ban home ownership of VCRs as a violation of copyrights, which proved unsuccessful, and eventually, the sale and rental of movies found themselves labeled as the ‘home video.’ In conclusion, other then the invention of home viewing jumping in to the second generation of issues with home rentals an purchases, I would say the biggest thing I found that we carried over from this period of film making other then creative and artistic freedoms would be that the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system was introduced. With the convergence of ‘Midnight Movies’, ‘B-Rated’, and ‘Grindhouse’ flicks playing in the theatre next to wholesome films like Disney’s Bed Knobs and Broomsticks; the rating system is here to stay.
Also on a side note, John Waters jumped on scene at this time and gave us bad taste and filthy trash movies like the classic ‘Pink Flamingos,’ oh how I love this flick. He also came out with films that confronted conventional morals and ethics like ‘Mondo Trasho and ‘Female Troubles’ before he went proper and main stream with ‘Hair Spray;’ the original, not that junk John Travolta tried to pawn off on us, and ‘Serial Mom.’ This was also the time great directors of the horror genre came into the picture. The god, Wes Craven with his debut into his directing career, the classic yet disturbing ‘The Last House on the Left,’ and again the original not that cleaned up sorry excuse for a remake a couple of years ago. Also we cannot leave out Tobe Hopper, the visionary that brought us ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ If you thought I was going to post a blog that was just facts and none of my ramblings – you don’t know me too well – I owe this to all my loyal fans out there reading my typed diarrhea. Thank you all of you out there, this last paragraphs for you, I could never let you down…
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film#1970s:_The_.27New_Hollywood.27_or_Post-classical_cinema
"Post-classical cinema" is a term used to describe the changing methods of storytelling of the "New Hollywood" producers(1). These new generations of producers differ from the original because they are film school-educated Hollywood filmmakers. There were breakthroughs in film technology around this time that enabled filmmakers to shoot in 35mm easier and since location shooting was cheaper because no sets were needed to be built, location shooting was becoming more viable and had the effect of heightening the realism and immersion of their films.
Later on during the 1970s, these filmmakers upped the ante with films often featuring anti-establishment political themes. They were increasingly depicting more sexually explicit content and sexual freedoms deemed "counter-cultural" by the studios. Furthermore, they started using rock music for the first time, gunfights, and battle scenes that started including graphic images of bloody deaths. The most memorable sign of the times in the movies made around this time in my opinion would be the many figures of this period openly admit to using drugs, such as LSD and marijuana.
I feel that the driving factor of this style they hoped to achieve while making their films was revolution. This couple of decades from the 1960s to the 1970s was person exploration and general loosening up. Everything seemed so tightly wound prior to this time period. No one talked about certain subjects and popular culture was so edictally dull that these new film makers wanted to break out and shake things up. This was the time that popular culture and society as a whole was evolving to what we know of today. Of course there was the 80s that introduced crude humor in their comedies and sequels to the classic of the decade passed, but mostly everyone was just on coke. The biggest thing I remember from the 1980s that effected movies was the invention of the VCR. The funny part was that the movie studios tried legal actions to ban home ownership of VCRs as a violation of copyrights, which proved unsuccessful, and eventually, the sale and rental of movies found themselves labeled as the ‘home video.’ In conclusion, other then the invention of home viewing jumping in to the second generation of issues with home rentals an purchases, I would say the biggest thing I found that we carried over from this period of film making other then creative and artistic freedoms would be that the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system was introduced. With the convergence of ‘Midnight Movies’, ‘B-Rated’, and ‘Grindhouse’ flicks playing in the theatre next to wholesome films like Disney’s Bed Knobs and Broomsticks; the rating system is here to stay.
Also on a side note, John Waters jumped on scene at this time and gave us bad taste and filthy trash movies like the classic ‘Pink Flamingos,’ oh how I love this flick. He also came out with films that confronted conventional morals and ethics like ‘Mondo Trasho and ‘Female Troubles’ before he went proper and main stream with ‘Hair Spray;’ the original, not that junk John Travolta tried to pawn off on us, and ‘Serial Mom.’ This was also the time great directors of the horror genre came into the picture. The god, Wes Craven with his debut into his directing career, the classic yet disturbing ‘The Last House on the Left,’ and again the original not that cleaned up sorry excuse for a remake a couple of years ago. Also we cannot leave out Tobe Hopper, the visionary that brought us ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ If you thought I was going to post a blog that was just facts and none of my ramblings – you don’t know me too well – I owe this to all my loyal fans out there reading my typed diarrhea. Thank you all of you out there, this last paragraphs for you, I could never let you down…
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film#1970s:_The_.27New_Hollywood.27_or_Post-classical_cinema
Monday, October 25, 2010
Modern American Remade Foreign Film
There are many movies that are enjoyed abroad and have found their place on US soil to occupy the shelves at your local video store. Some of them you can notice at first glance, yet some of them are a little less obvious. Especially the ones that change their names, like the one I would like to write about now. The modern American film that is a remake of a foreign film that I chose was “The Uninvited.” I can start off talking about the film and the changes that occurred on its trip state side with the title. “The Uninvited” started life out as Janghwa, Hongryeon, a Korean film thats title translates to “A Tale of Two Sisters”. The film was inspired by a traditional Korean Joseon Dynasty folktale entitled "Janghwa Hongreyon-jon" or “Janghwa and Hongryeon”. The film was directed by Ji-woon Kim and released in Korea back in 2003. This movie is important and influential because both Korea and Hong Kong were lagging behind in the horror genre. Korea still has yet to really stake their claim in the horror market, unlike Hong Kong with the crossover hit “The Eye”. In my opinion, the movie is good but both Hong Kong and Korean still don't have an instant classic like Japan has with “The Ring”. The Tale of Two Sisters is a great entry into this genre but is not of the same caliber.
If you haven't seen this movie you may want to watch it prior to reading this. I am afraid I might be unable to talk about the differences between the two films without spoiling the plot. Unfortunately if you know what's coming you most likely will not enjoy this film as much as you should.
The beginning of the movie opens up with a father picking up his youngest daughter Anna from a hospital and returning her back home. Anna is going home but has no memory after a boathouse fire causes the death of her ill mother. The young teenager tries to commit suicide and is sent to a mental institution for treatment. Right here is one of the first differences you'll come across but is very relevant to this movie's success in America. In the Korean version the mother dies when her daughter goes to sleep and the mother hangs herself in Bae Su-Yeon's (who is the younger daughter) wardrobe closet. Su-Yeon wakens and the door to her closet opens. When she looks inside she finds her mother hanged. She shakes the lifeless body in an attempt to revive it, but instead pulls the wardrobe closet down on top of her. There she suffocates, or is slowly crushed to death by the weight of her mother and the closet. I feel that American audiences would have written this off as a 'B' movie scene and not taken it as seriously, and would not relate to is as well as we would a death caused by a boathouse fire. Now back to the American version Anna and her father are home in an isolated mansion near the coast. Anna is reunited with her older sister, Alex, who is role reversed from the original since the older sister (Bae Su-mi) was hospitalized in Korean version - yet Anna, the younger one is in hospital in the American version. Anna then discovers that her mother's former nurse, Rachel Summers, is her stepmother now. I have to ask, isn’t that a great plot addition? No matter what happens in this movie from this point on you’re going to accuse the wicked stepmother, it's second nature. In both versions the evil stepmother Rachel (Eun-joo in Korea) is all sweet and accommodating and motherly, much to the annoyance of the girls. Clearly, there's no family love felt here.
Around this time in the Korean version you'll witness a scene that did not make it at all in the American one. This would be the scene that Su-mi, who is Alex in US, tells the stepmother that her sister has begun her period that morning, to which Eun-joo, this one is Rachel, scoffs and tells Su-mi it's a spooky coincidence that she, too, has started hers. Su-mi decides that this is too much information and rushes off, only to stop and realize that she too has also started her period at the same time. Oh yeah, that's right for some reason all three women begin their menstrual cycle at exactly the same time, I cannot make this up. So if this is a scene that you must witness, yet I still do not understand the relevance behind it, you will have to import the Korean copy . Moving right along, throughout the American version Anna is having dreams about three strange children. She is haunted by these ghosts and begins to receive warnings from her late mother and these three children, who are always silent but point her to a tragedy that occurred years before in a nearby county. The sisters are convinced their mother is sending a message that the fire was murder and Rachel is to blame. The evidence backs this up when the sisters are unable to find a record of Rachel with the State Nursing Association. Anna and Alex gather all point to Rachel having a secret past and that she is now living under an assumed identity. Isn't this getting good? Anna and her sister believes that Rachel killed her mother. That is true American get to the point and jump to conclusion kind of suspense. Directing you in only one obvious direction, right? Or is it misdirection? The Korean scene is a little more stumbled upon when the girls look at several old family photos which reveal that their stepmother was once a nurse their father worked with and apparently was also a live-in nurse for the girl's mother. That's a fine scene don't get me wrong but American's need more. Take for example, Anna also eventually learns Rachel is actually a lady named Mildred Kemp. A nanny who killed the three children from Anna's dreams because she was obsessed with their widowed father, now isn't that satisfying?
Now this is the hard part to talk about without spoiling the plot so you have been warned. The ending differs quite a bit so I'll start you off with the Korean version first. In the final climax of the movie there is a confrontation between Su-mi and the stepmother while the father is away. The stepmother proceeds to drop a statue on Su-Mi's head as the father returns. This situation looks very odd to the father. The father enters and asks Su-Mi why all these bad things have been happening since she returned. Su-Mi replies that it's the stepmother to blame and that his new wife has been attacking Su-Yeon. The father tells her to stop it and screams at her that Su-Yeon is dead. Neither Su-Mi, nor Su-Yeon, is pleased to hear this news. Su-Mi has been in the house alone with her father the past few days and that the conversations and events she had previously had with Su-Yeon and her stepmother were the result of her schizophrenic mind. Su-Mi has been hallucinating the whole time. The father attends to the stepmother's injuries and leaves the room. When the door opens again, someone else enters: THE REAL STEPMOTHER. Yeah quite a mind blower huh? This scene has been completely reworked for the American audiences. The Americanized version Anna runs to town to inform the sheriff of her stepmother. Anna mentions that Rachel has drugged her older sister Alex and how they need help because Rachel is a murder. Skeptical, in response to this incriminating information the sheriff calls Rachel and tells her about Anna's accusations and location so to sedate Anna and drive her home. Rachel carries Anna to bed. Anna sees Alex in the doorway with a knife and passes out. Pretty good so far huh, wait it gets better. Later, Anna wakes and finds a large blood trail leading to the dumpster and Rachel's body inside. Alex is nearby with the knife. The girls comfort each other, and the father comes home. Anna explains that Rachel attacked them and Alex saved her. Confused, the father says that Alex died in the fire. Anna sees she's not holding Alex's hand like she had previously thought, but the bloody knife. Yet that is not all, remember all the dirt the sisters dig up throughout the movie on Rachel? If you didn't think they would have tied up those loose ends, well think again. At the end of it all the father tells the police that Rachel changed her name because of an abusive boyfriend as Anna is arrested and taken back to the institution. The police ask why Anna would make up the Mildred story but no one had the answer until Anna is welcomed back to the hospital by the patient that scared her at the beginning of the film while she packed to go home. The name plate on the door said "Mildred Kemp". I don't know about you but I'm spent, I couldn't tell you which ending I like more since they both achieve the same purpose but in different cultures. It is like the alternate endings found in the special features on your DVD.
I enjoy both films because together they complete the story as a whole. In the American version the story is somewhat linear in direction and to the point that this family is suffering from some issues and probably will not end on a high note. I am American and I enjoy our version because I'm used to this style of storytelling yet with the Korean version I feel I get the whole story. Asian horror films seem to intuitively understand that true fear derives from the unknown. There's always something unsettling going on, and that's really all that needs to be known. Their version included one more character not translated into ours, the house. As soon as you start the Korean version it becomes clear that something is not right in their house. It's about the lingering horror of a violent act and how it reverberates through a family's life, how its memory remains in their house even after the evidence has been cleared and removed. This movie uses such brilliant colors to establish mood. Everything is bright in this film and the use of color brings out a sort of dream-like, almost fairy-tale quality that's complimented by the darkness of the subject. Familial rivalry has only really been explored to this sort of depth within a horror movie from America with the release of V.C. Andrews’ "Flowers In The Attic". I must say in my opinion, this is a must see. The American one for sure since it is a great adaptation but if you can handle the reading pick up the Korean version. I don't think you'll be disappointed.
If you haven't seen this movie you may want to watch it prior to reading this. I am afraid I might be unable to talk about the differences between the two films without spoiling the plot. Unfortunately if you know what's coming you most likely will not enjoy this film as much as you should.
The beginning of the movie opens up with a father picking up his youngest daughter Anna from a hospital and returning her back home. Anna is going home but has no memory after a boathouse fire causes the death of her ill mother. The young teenager tries to commit suicide and is sent to a mental institution for treatment. Right here is one of the first differences you'll come across but is very relevant to this movie's success in America. In the Korean version the mother dies when her daughter goes to sleep and the mother hangs herself in Bae Su-Yeon's (who is the younger daughter) wardrobe closet. Su-Yeon wakens and the door to her closet opens. When she looks inside she finds her mother hanged. She shakes the lifeless body in an attempt to revive it, but instead pulls the wardrobe closet down on top of her. There she suffocates, or is slowly crushed to death by the weight of her mother and the closet. I feel that American audiences would have written this off as a 'B' movie scene and not taken it as seriously, and would not relate to is as well as we would a death caused by a boathouse fire. Now back to the American version Anna and her father are home in an isolated mansion near the coast. Anna is reunited with her older sister, Alex, who is role reversed from the original since the older sister (Bae Su-mi) was hospitalized in Korean version - yet Anna, the younger one is in hospital in the American version. Anna then discovers that her mother's former nurse, Rachel Summers, is her stepmother now. I have to ask, isn’t that a great plot addition? No matter what happens in this movie from this point on you’re going to accuse the wicked stepmother, it's second nature. In both versions the evil stepmother Rachel (Eun-joo in Korea) is all sweet and accommodating and motherly, much to the annoyance of the girls. Clearly, there's no family love felt here.
Around this time in the Korean version you'll witness a scene that did not make it at all in the American one. This would be the scene that Su-mi, who is Alex in US, tells the stepmother that her sister has begun her period that morning, to which Eun-joo, this one is Rachel, scoffs and tells Su-mi it's a spooky coincidence that she, too, has started hers. Su-mi decides that this is too much information and rushes off, only to stop and realize that she too has also started her period at the same time. Oh yeah, that's right for some reason all three women begin their menstrual cycle at exactly the same time, I cannot make this up. So if this is a scene that you must witness, yet I still do not understand the relevance behind it, you will have to import the Korean copy . Moving right along, throughout the American version Anna is having dreams about three strange children. She is haunted by these ghosts and begins to receive warnings from her late mother and these three children, who are always silent but point her to a tragedy that occurred years before in a nearby county. The sisters are convinced their mother is sending a message that the fire was murder and Rachel is to blame. The evidence backs this up when the sisters are unable to find a record of Rachel with the State Nursing Association. Anna and Alex gather all point to Rachel having a secret past and that she is now living under an assumed identity. Isn't this getting good? Anna and her sister believes that Rachel killed her mother. That is true American get to the point and jump to conclusion kind of suspense. Directing you in only one obvious direction, right? Or is it misdirection? The Korean scene is a little more stumbled upon when the girls look at several old family photos which reveal that their stepmother was once a nurse their father worked with and apparently was also a live-in nurse for the girl's mother. That's a fine scene don't get me wrong but American's need more. Take for example, Anna also eventually learns Rachel is actually a lady named Mildred Kemp. A nanny who killed the three children from Anna's dreams because she was obsessed with their widowed father, now isn't that satisfying?
Now this is the hard part to talk about without spoiling the plot so you have been warned. The ending differs quite a bit so I'll start you off with the Korean version first. In the final climax of the movie there is a confrontation between Su-mi and the stepmother while the father is away. The stepmother proceeds to drop a statue on Su-Mi's head as the father returns. This situation looks very odd to the father. The father enters and asks Su-Mi why all these bad things have been happening since she returned. Su-Mi replies that it's the stepmother to blame and that his new wife has been attacking Su-Yeon. The father tells her to stop it and screams at her that Su-Yeon is dead. Neither Su-Mi, nor Su-Yeon, is pleased to hear this news. Su-Mi has been in the house alone with her father the past few days and that the conversations and events she had previously had with Su-Yeon and her stepmother were the result of her schizophrenic mind. Su-Mi has been hallucinating the whole time. The father attends to the stepmother's injuries and leaves the room. When the door opens again, someone else enters: THE REAL STEPMOTHER. Yeah quite a mind blower huh? This scene has been completely reworked for the American audiences. The Americanized version Anna runs to town to inform the sheriff of her stepmother. Anna mentions that Rachel has drugged her older sister Alex and how they need help because Rachel is a murder. Skeptical, in response to this incriminating information the sheriff calls Rachel and tells her about Anna's accusations and location so to sedate Anna and drive her home. Rachel carries Anna to bed. Anna sees Alex in the doorway with a knife and passes out. Pretty good so far huh, wait it gets better. Later, Anna wakes and finds a large blood trail leading to the dumpster and Rachel's body inside. Alex is nearby with the knife. The girls comfort each other, and the father comes home. Anna explains that Rachel attacked them and Alex saved her. Confused, the father says that Alex died in the fire. Anna sees she's not holding Alex's hand like she had previously thought, but the bloody knife. Yet that is not all, remember all the dirt the sisters dig up throughout the movie on Rachel? If you didn't think they would have tied up those loose ends, well think again. At the end of it all the father tells the police that Rachel changed her name because of an abusive boyfriend as Anna is arrested and taken back to the institution. The police ask why Anna would make up the Mildred story but no one had the answer until Anna is welcomed back to the hospital by the patient that scared her at the beginning of the film while she packed to go home. The name plate on the door said "Mildred Kemp". I don't know about you but I'm spent, I couldn't tell you which ending I like more since they both achieve the same purpose but in different cultures. It is like the alternate endings found in the special features on your DVD.
I enjoy both films because together they complete the story as a whole. In the American version the story is somewhat linear in direction and to the point that this family is suffering from some issues and probably will not end on a high note. I am American and I enjoy our version because I'm used to this style of storytelling yet with the Korean version I feel I get the whole story. Asian horror films seem to intuitively understand that true fear derives from the unknown. There's always something unsettling going on, and that's really all that needs to be known. Their version included one more character not translated into ours, the house. As soon as you start the Korean version it becomes clear that something is not right in their house. It's about the lingering horror of a violent act and how it reverberates through a family's life, how its memory remains in their house even after the evidence has been cleared and removed. This movie uses such brilliant colors to establish mood. Everything is bright in this film and the use of color brings out a sort of dream-like, almost fairy-tale quality that's complimented by the darkness of the subject. Familial rivalry has only really been explored to this sort of depth within a horror movie from America with the release of V.C. Andrews’ "Flowers In The Attic". I must say in my opinion, this is a must see. The American one for sure since it is a great adaptation but if you can handle the reading pick up the Korean version. I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Alfred Hitchcock is the Golden Age of Cinema
When I saw that we could write about a director of the Golden Age of American film I have to say I got excited. I was excited because I could write about Alfred Hitchcock. Now he was an English filmmaker and producer yet his contributions to American cinema are milestones and he did become a dual citizen. This is the man who pioneered techniques in the suspense and psychological thrillers not to mention the voyeur-esque style he shot his films to evoke a sense of anxiety. With a career that spanned more than half a century Alfred Hitchcock perfected the plot twist unlike anyone before or since. To be honest who ever knew what was going to happen at the end of Psycho. He even lock down the set while filming and made everyone who worked on the set to sign a contract of silence. I even heard and this could all be rumors but there is a story that Alfred Hitchcock hired someone or even dressed himself as an old lady, oh say like a mother, and this person would walk in and out of set so that no one would catch on that there was no mother and the guy who played Norman Bates was reading those extra mom lines. Other then Psycho of course there were other very popular films. For example The Birds, Vertigo, To Catch a Thief, Dial M for Murder, and Mr. & Mrs. Smith which may or may not have been remade with the lovable scamps Bad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. I'm still not sure on that one - to me they seen two different movies but exactly the same name, yet the Alfred Hitchcock I remember is the one who brought me Alfred Hitchcock Presents every week on my TV when I was very little. If you haven't seen these I would have to highly recommend you pick these up and watch them. I think there is only seventeen or so episodes but each one is like a little Hitchcock movie squeezed into thirty minutes. A great director and crossing over to TV, there was nothing Hitchcock could not do. Unfortunately his TV career was short lived and only lasted one season I think but he was going after Rod Serling who was after all the god of suspense and horror TV.
I think one person who was influenced by Alfred Hitch was Steven King. It seem like they share the same interest in cameo shot on their movies. Now Hitchcock originated this and most likely appeared in every movie in some form or another yet it seems like King is only in about eighty to ninety percent of his films. I think this is what made Hitchcock a house hold name. His movies were great but every time you watch one you recognize this one guy in every single one of these movies. It is never a significant role but it is like he always pops in. Subliminal Remembrance - now I know that this is not a real word but I feel this is one of the reasons I remember and many people I know remember the great Alfred Hitchcock. Sometimes it even became a game to point him out, this game would later be sold off as Where's Waldo in the mid-nineties in which I received no compensation for the idea. Seriously though Alfred Hitchcock to me is the inventor of suspense and thriller. He is the one who had the guts to throw chocolate syrup on the shower walls when no one else would and call it blood. It was black and white, would the audiences even realize it? Let's not forget to mention his 'MacGuffins' they were objects or devices which drove the plot and were of great interest to the film's characters, but which to the audience were otherwise inconsequential and could be forgotten once they had served their purpose. Hitchcock to me is the most influential director I know that originated from The Golden Age of Cinema and without Hitchcock's wonderful antics like inserting shots of a woman's hairstyle - frequently in close-ups, his dark humor and dry wit, especially regarding murder, and he used to create more shadows on the walls to create suspense and tension we wouldn't have the adjective "Hitchcockian" for suspense thrillers.
I think one person who was influenced by Alfred Hitch was Steven King. It seem like they share the same interest in cameo shot on their movies. Now Hitchcock originated this and most likely appeared in every movie in some form or another yet it seems like King is only in about eighty to ninety percent of his films. I think this is what made Hitchcock a house hold name. His movies were great but every time you watch one you recognize this one guy in every single one of these movies. It is never a significant role but it is like he always pops in. Subliminal Remembrance - now I know that this is not a real word but I feel this is one of the reasons I remember and many people I know remember the great Alfred Hitchcock. Sometimes it even became a game to point him out, this game would later be sold off as Where's Waldo in the mid-nineties in which I received no compensation for the idea. Seriously though Alfred Hitchcock to me is the inventor of suspense and thriller. He is the one who had the guts to throw chocolate syrup on the shower walls when no one else would and call it blood. It was black and white, would the audiences even realize it? Let's not forget to mention his 'MacGuffins' they were objects or devices which drove the plot and were of great interest to the film's characters, but which to the audience were otherwise inconsequential and could be forgotten once they had served their purpose. Hitchcock to me is the most influential director I know that originated from The Golden Age of Cinema and without Hitchcock's wonderful antics like inserting shots of a woman's hairstyle - frequently in close-ups, his dark humor and dry wit, especially regarding murder, and he used to create more shadows on the walls to create suspense and tension we wouldn't have the adjective "Hitchcockian" for suspense thrillers.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
First Blog - The Technology of Film...
Silent movies are an important stepping stone to the films that we have and enjoy today. Although silent movies are pretty much obsolete in this day and age, their importance are momentous. One of the biggest characteristics that separate silent films from "talkies" is the over acting that was needed for the stage, which would eventually be toned down significantly with the introduction of microphones. The actors and actresses would hover around stationary microphones which showed the director that one could act out a scene without overacting the part. The element of overacting and to be honest the many early experimentations in the infancy of film most likely will not be missed. These were more or less the stepping stones to the final product. No one misses the prototypes of a product if the end product is so well put together as in the evolution of films. One would have to make the best visual presentation to be able to profit off of a silent film these days. As mentioned in my discussion board entry last week, I consider the sound of a movie as important as the actors themselves; thus for me, silent movies are dead. Not that I will not watch a classic like The Lost World or one of the silent movies on TCM in the middle of the night but for new productions to not include sound effects and talking would be an unfinished product.
Now a days in Hollywood, directors are making a killing on churning out remakes. Any of the classic and well made silent films from the genesis of film creation could be made into great movies for this generation. One would have to integrate the sound effects and voices for it to sell. For example The Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1923 was a silent film that was made into a couple of talking versions that were excellent; including a Disney version which proves it is a solid story that may always stand the test of time. Most audiences, no matter what decade, will be able to relate feeling like an outsider, being judged on appearances and sorting through the insecurities that come with loving a person that is out of your league. There are some movies that may never make it like The Birth of a Nation because the story behind that film is a sad and dark look into our history specific to that era. On the other hand, The Mark of Zorro and Robin Hood are other fine examples of silent movies successfully modernized. The stories are timeless and can cross any barriers that come along in the development of storytelling. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and The Last of the Mohicans are also prime examples. The point being that even though these movies started out as silent films the stories are not dead. The technical aspect of how the story is told will always change, be it with silent moving pictures that had the occasional text dialogue or digital picture with ear popping Dolby Digital Surround 7.1 sound. It is the story that will last, not the technology. Yet one of the technologies that have still managed to remain throughout all this progression would be the zoetrope. I discovered this on the first day of class and am reminded every time I visit Jerome, AZ. The technology is still around however now it is simply a novelty relic of days passed. Silent movies are dead and will probably stay that way, it is the influence and technology that has taken movies this far and should never be forgotten. I would love to see a newer version of Nosferatu though; silent or not that was a great flick.
Now a days in Hollywood, directors are making a killing on churning out remakes. Any of the classic and well made silent films from the genesis of film creation could be made into great movies for this generation. One would have to integrate the sound effects and voices for it to sell. For example The Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1923 was a silent film that was made into a couple of talking versions that were excellent; including a Disney version which proves it is a solid story that may always stand the test of time. Most audiences, no matter what decade, will be able to relate feeling like an outsider, being judged on appearances and sorting through the insecurities that come with loving a person that is out of your league. There are some movies that may never make it like The Birth of a Nation because the story behind that film is a sad and dark look into our history specific to that era. On the other hand, The Mark of Zorro and Robin Hood are other fine examples of silent movies successfully modernized. The stories are timeless and can cross any barriers that come along in the development of storytelling. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and The Last of the Mohicans are also prime examples. The point being that even though these movies started out as silent films the stories are not dead. The technical aspect of how the story is told will always change, be it with silent moving pictures that had the occasional text dialogue or digital picture with ear popping Dolby Digital Surround 7.1 sound. It is the story that will last, not the technology. Yet one of the technologies that have still managed to remain throughout all this progression would be the zoetrope. I discovered this on the first day of class and am reminded every time I visit Jerome, AZ. The technology is still around however now it is simply a novelty relic of days passed. Silent movies are dead and will probably stay that way, it is the influence and technology that has taken movies this far and should never be forgotten. I would love to see a newer version of Nosferatu though; silent or not that was a great flick.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Movies that keep returning throughout our lives...
I have never written a blog before so i thought I would give it a try and since this is a blog of the movie theme I thought I would share a movie memory that has just surfaced within the last week. When I was young I used to watch a lot of movies, specifically the horror movies. For example, the Friday the 13th series, A Nightmare on Elm St. series, Puppet Masters and many of the Full Moon movies. Every now and then there is that one movie that is not that special but keeps on returning in your life; that movie for me is a little known cult classic called Phantasm. Phantasm is by no means a good movie, the acting is bad and the plot is not that clear. It is about a crypt keeper that steals bodies and turns them into the little hooded creatures similar to the characters from Star Wars that buy and sell robots to Jaba. This movie comes up frequently while hanging out with friends. We re-watch it and talk about why on earth anyone would make five sequels following the weak plot. This week it was just the title that brought up memories. When I was about 16 or 17 years old I met a guy named Charles. He let me learn and play bass in his band named Phantasm. We became close friends and eventually roommates while i worked at an old video store in town called Video City my senior year of high school. I brought movies home from work just about every night. Now every time I think about the movie Phantasm I think of the band Charlie and I were in. To this day I believe with no certainty that movie's name was the inspiration for our bands' name. I know not for sure if he liked the movie but the title seems to have stuck with him. Unfortunately, I will never know the answer to this question because my life long buddy passed away the fourth of this month. A lot of my answers left with him, but I do know we had matching collections of A Nightmare on Elm St. and we were in a band named Phantasm. So how do movies influence our lives and how much? I would have to say movies influence us a lot. Every time I see the cover of that horrible, low budget movie from my youth I remember my buddy Charles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)