An Interesting Career Possibility...

Check out this great article in the New York Times about combining biology with filmmaking (animation)...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/science/16animate.html?_r=1&hpw

Looks like a wide open field for those of you interested in the sciences and film.

Blog Response #8--Man With a Movie Camera

First, be sure you finish watching the film...

http://www.archive.org/details/ChelovekskinoapparatomManWithAMovieCamera

We ended at 42:37 in class.

Your Looking at Movies textbook has a nice quote about Vertov and his film on page 428.

Vertov shows us how to frame reality and movement: through the human eye and the camera eye, or through windows and shutters. But to confound us, he also shows us--through such devices as the freeze-frame, split screen, stop-action, slow motion, and fast motion--how the cinematographer and editor can transform the movements of life into something that is unpredictable. He not only proves that the camera has a life of its own, but also reminds us of the editor, who is putting all of this footage together. Reality may be in the control of the artist, his camera, and its tricks, but it also finds definition within the editor's presentation and, ultimately, the viewer's perception.

In your first well-developed paragraph, please discuss this quote in relation to a five minute piece of Man With a Movie Camera. Be sure to describe shots cinematically, as if I've never seen the film before. Discuss elements of editing, such as the juxtaposition of shots, rhythm, montage, etc.

In your second well-developed paragraph, discuss this quote in relation to a film of your choice. Try to be as specific as possible in your descriptions and speak cinematically when you discuss the film. If you'd like to come into the library during a free period to watch a clip of a film I have that you've seen, please see me. Remember: the earlier the better.

Blog Response #7

I hope you got a lot out of Battleship Potemkin. I highly suggest watching it again:

http://www.archive.org/details/BattleshipPotemkin

Re-read the Ebert essay I handed out to you on Monday. Please discuss the following in at least two well-developed paragraphs:

"The Battleship Potemkin is conceived as a class-conscious revolutionary propaganda, and Eisenstein deliberately avoids creating any three-dimensional individuals (even Vakulinchuk is seen largely as a symbol). Instead, masses of men move in unison, as in the many shots looking down at Potemkin's foredeck. The people of Odessa, too, are seen as a mass made up of many briefly glimpsed but starkly seen faces. The dialogue (in title cards) is limited mostly to outrage and exhortation. There is no personal drama to counterbalance the larger political drama."

Do you agree with Ebert? If so, why do you think Eisenstein chose this format for his film? Explain how the editing and the shots give meaning to the Marxist, revolutionary propaganda in the film and whether or not you think three-dimensional characters would have added to or subtracted from the message. In addition, analyze a 5 minute scene or sequence to show the power of Eisenstein's editing style. Be sure to use specific examples and speak cinematically in your paragraphs.

Here is another article that may be helpful to you:

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CCX3406800145&v=2.1&u=nysl_we_bcsd&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w

Enjoy the weather and take a couple of hours to watch a good film this weekend.

Oh, to be in NYC!

Playing at my favorite movie house...

http://www.filmforum.org/films/psycho.html

Too bad we couldn't do a field trip next week.

Spine Chilling Films

Here is the correct link for Nosferatu:

http://www.archive.org/details/NosferatuVs.Ritsu

Please note that it is tinted to decipher when it is daylight and when it is night. Blue represents night. Apparently, they filmed the entire film in daytime and had to be able to distinguish between night and day and Murnau chose to tint the film. Here is a link to Roger Ebert's essay on the film:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970928/REVIEWS08/401010345/1023

It is a very interesting article (easy to read!)...

Remember, don't watch this film at night by yourself!

Also, if you want to re-watch The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, here is the link:

http://www.archive.org/details/DasKabinettdesDoktorCaligariTheCabinetofDrCaligari

And, if you want to read what Ebert had to say, here goes:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090603/REVIEWS08/906039987/1023

Silent Sunday Nights

Not that you should be staying up late on Sunday nights, but perhaps record some of these films and watch them with the lights out, by yourself maybe the following Saturday night. Now that you've realized silent films are really pretty cool, check some of these out on TCM...

Click here for the link.

Blog Response #6

Think about a director whose movies you have seen. In at least 2 well-developed paragraphs, discuss the three premises of auteur theory. Refer to Mr. Sarris' article and:

1. The technical competence of the director.

2. The distinguishable personality of the director.

3. The interior meaning of the works.

Think cinematically, use plenty of examples, and have fun. Remember: I look forward to reading them.

Due: Monday, October 4, at 8:00 am.