Penelope

Penelope is the story about a pig-faced girl, cursed by the mistakes of her ancestors looking to break it by finding her true love that will love her for who she truly is; pig nose and all. What is so incredible about this film is the depth that the movie goes to in exploring the human condition and giving a modern twist to a fairytale. Penelope gives off a vibe that is similar to Nanny McPhee with who the set and costumes are created. However, there is deeper themes woven throughout Penelope because it is really a movie meant for an older audience, fairytale or not. 

On an editing note, the makes of Penelope use a lot of cutting within scenes that are suppose to have a lot of tension within the scene. Most of the scenes that are between Penelope and her mother are shot that way. Another time that his occurs is when Penelope goes out into public because she finally realizes how fast pace the world is. The abundance in cutting works well during that scene because it helps build the audience emotions during an emotional scene. However, when we are looking at Penelope's relationship with Johnny Martin, who is presumed to be a blue blood, the shots are longer because the cinematographer wants the audience to reflect on the relationship that is building between these two characters. It also helps build suspense because the audience wants to see these two characters end up together in the end. 

One of my favorite pieces in the whole film is how the film makers shot Penelope swinging on a swing attracted to a fake tree in her room when she was still under the curse. Then, at the end of the movie, we see Penelope swinging once again, but she is with the one she loves and she is also out in the open. The filmmakers are trying to show the transition of Penelope's suppression from the curse she was under to the freedom she gains when the curse is finally broken. The addition of this piece into the movie is really interesting and helps add depth to what the production team was trying to portray. 

Film and the Written Word

The two articles that we had to read by William Goldman dealt with scriptwriting for films and kinda a vague overview of what it is like to write a film. What seems to be most confusing for me was trying to relate to the articles, as I had never seem Fargo or Chinatown, but more importantly, I wonder what I was suppose to make with all the information written down.

It seemed to me the Goldman was on the basic level elaborating on his thoughts and life. He was sharing his experiences in film making to give others a good idea of what the film industry is like. At least back in the 1960s or so. However, it seems that on a deeper level Goldman is really trying to show us the complexity in scriptwriting. It obvious in the fact that he carries in elaborate paragraphs to talk about writing for films and describing scenes instead of just cutting to the chase and making it scientific. Goldman also talks about writers block, outlining and story, needing to know what is going to happen throughout your story, the mysteriousness of writers approach to writing, and more. It through all these different facets in scriptwriting that we learn just how hard it is to make a film.

Money and Film

In reading William Goldman's article Adventures in the Screen Trade, one of the most interesting parts was discussing the cost of film: something an audience and budding screenwriters take for granted. I, myself had never realized how much it would actually take to create a scene that required 100% realistic action. For instance, Goldman talks about how the designer on a particular film was talking about how to shoot a car crash. The big piece to shooting this whole sequence was that not only did the film have to look real but the car was only a rental and had to be returned unscratched. This was in 1960's where there was no computers to generate a scene like this without ruining a car. The biggest lesson from this short passage is simple. It not about what you want; its about what you can afford.

I think one of the side lessons that I learned just from this short passage is that film is complex organism with multiple, vital parts to it. All these parts help to create a film. However, if one of these part is not there or is not fulfilling it part then the organism will shut down and it will be useless. Its the same with film. It you can create reality or your actors are sub-par then there is no way that you can create a good film. It will be useless.

Secretariat

Alright, I have to admit that this is  one of the best movies that I have seen since....the Blindside, probably. Maybe I am addicted to these types of movies but I don't care. THEY ARE SO GOOD. 

What I loved about the filming of this movie was the absolute variety of shots there was. It seems as though the filmmakers tried to think of every angle that would help portray the significance of the plot, an idea, or character development. One of my favorite segments in this film is when Secretariat is in one of the races and the filmmakers catch shots in the point of view of the jockey and then they would switch to a wide shot of the whole race track, then they would switch to a close up of the house. However, the best part of this sequence is right at the end where the frame is expanded so the shot looks as though the horse is moving slower than it actually is. In doing this, the audience can see the horse lift its whole body off the ground and then land back down of each foot. It is incredible. 

Secondly, I loved how the filmmakers incorporated Penny Chenery's family into the film as well. Though the movie is mainly about Chenery, the owner of Secretariat, we still see how living a life far away from your home and family takes a toll on the loved ones. There were many times where the filmmakers would interlink the life that Penny Chenery was making for herself in Meadow Stables and the life her family was leading back in Colorado. However, there is this one moment, when the family at home is watching the race, that we see the excitement on Penny Chenery's face as she watches her horse race and the excitement of her family back home as they watch Secretariat win the race. It's in the few moments, and those juxtaposition of frames that shows the audience that even though this family is separated, there is a thread that is keeping them together.

Understanding Media (aka trying to figure out what this guy is talking about)

I am not even half way through this article and I already feel compelled to discuss what the author has written in the article due for tomorrow's class. My two main issues: He has this whole metaphor of how a movies are like the written word and that its about literacy...blah blah blah. Secondly, he talks about how movies are better in the sense that they give ten times the amount of detail than a book ever could. Watch it, bud.

First off, the whole metaphor of a movie really being like words and movies is all about literacy and that sound is irrelevant seems absolutely stupid. Frankly, it sounds like some superfluous non-sense that takes the beauty out of film. Let's put movies in their proper perspective here. I can agree with the fact that movies produce literacy, as in academic literacy, although that is hard to argue these day with shows like Jersey Shore or movies like Stepbrothers. However, there is a big difference between the written word and movies. The point of a book is to bring imagination while a movie is the realized imagination. Even though a book gives us details about how a scene is suppose to look or how a person is suppose to look, everybody has a different idea of how that person should be, because words are arbitrary. Even though words have a meaning, people still have different associations with them. With film, the part of imagination is gone. It is already there. The people and plot are physically there in front of you and you cannot change it. Your eyes have given you the evidence that that is the way it is. Now, while some may argue that you have the same problem with books I beg to differ. Because with book, there is more flexibility to imagine the possibilities. Maybe I'm wrong about all of this, maybe I just missed what this guy was trying to say, but oh well.

Second, I do not see how movies are better at giving detail in a movie than a book is. I think that both are extremely effective but I don't think that you can sit there and clam that one is better than the other.Yes, a movie can give an abundance more of detail but are the people really catching all the detail or are they forced to focus on a small point made in the frame because the of abundance of detail. The information you get from a movie is like a ball of string, you can tell where the end or beginning is, and you only notice what is on the surface. However, when it come to reading about a scene or a character, the detail is more linear. It is one thought at a time. It as though that ball of string that was handed to you is not tied from one end of the room to the other. You know where the beginning is; you know where the end is, and you get to follow all the detail in between. You look at the heart of the situation.

Point of View

In one of the recent articles that we had to read for class, there was a chunk dedicated to talking about point of views. Well, maybe not directly, but it still came through in the text. As I began to ponder this, I realized how important point of view is for an audience. Point of view gives your audience an anchor. Something to hold on to when things may seem vague. It can give them a starting point so that they know where to go.

There are pros and cons to using point of view.

Pros:
- have a starting point
- can develop the depth of a character
- can narrow down your subject
- helps to develop a more complex plot

Cons:
- lack in depth of development in other characters
- sometimes and put constraints in covering multiple ideas
- subjectivity vs. objectivity
- bias

However, it seems as though it would be hard to tell a movie without point of view. So, what do you think is better? Do the pros outweigh the cons?

Film and Fashion

Two movies: The Devil wears Prada and Confessions of a Shopaholic

Alright, I already know what is going through everybody has heard as I write about these movies. That think that I picked something lame, or something that isn't profound or deep to write about. Maybe you are right. This movie isn't profound or deep. It's not some new indie film that just recently came out (Honestly, I find it hard to find an incredibly good indie move). Its not an Academy Award Winner....well the Devil Wears Prada was probably nominated for one or two, but that's besides the point. The reason why I chose to write about this is because both of these movies pertain to something that I love. Fashion.

What is so interesting about both pieces is the use of lighting for each film. Many of the times when a director was trying to get a shot that would accentuate the clothing, they would use harsh lighting to create more angular shadows and create shapes within the shot. This was usual done when they were shooting a frame that had apparel that was edgy. For shots that were more fun and colorful, there would be softer lines that would give gradual shadowing and softer lights, making the shot seemed warmer. Another interesting think is that a lot of the background was neutral colors, very bland. Many times it would be white. By using a white background the light would bounce of the wall and reflect onto the object that the director is trying to shoot creating a different kind of frame.