The film Apocalypse Now was uncomfortable to watch and it often made me feel like I was going to end up insane along with many of the characters. I can thank the film makers for that. The way scenes were shot, especially camera proximity, point of view and framing was vital in making me, the viewer, feel like I would slowly go insane.
The bridge sequence is a good example of use of camera proximity. The scene began with flashing lights and a medium close up shot of Willard. When the attention goes from Willard to the bridge, a long shot is used in order that the viewer can see everything going on—swinging lights, crazy soldiers, dark night, explosions, etc. At one point the sequence shows Johnson and one of the other crew members talking. The puppy and the bridge are in the background. A medium close up shot was used for this, but it was interesting how depth of field was used. We saw the head and shoulders of the characters talking in a shallow focus shot because everything behind them—the puppy and bridge were out of focus. When I first saw this, I was curious as to why the puppy was out of focus because it was so close to them. I think this was done to show the distortion of some kind of innocence.
As Willard’s boat gets closer, we see there are men in the water trying to get onto the boat. A high angle shot was used to show that the boat was above the men in the water, and also, the point of view changed here—we, the viewers, were now on the boat looking down. We saw from the crew’s point of view. Point of view is important when creating an effect on an audience. The boat shot included me as part of the crew—I was in the film. The film used this a lot. I was placed in a scene, whether I wanted to be or not, which made me feel like I was one of the soldiers struggling with my sanity.
Another use of cinematography that was important to the bridge sequence occurred when Willard and Johnson actually get off the boat and go on shore. There is a widescreen view of the shore/bridge, which was used to show the expansiveness of the chaos. When Willard and Johnson walk on shore there is a shot that uses framing in an interesting way. There are vertical dark, straight lined trees and light moving all around and behind them. Soldiers are walking every direction—in and out of the frames of the trees. Because nobody will stay within the frame of the trees, I got a sense of extreme disorder.
Apocalypse Now used many different aspects of cinematography to create an effect on the audience. It definitely worked on me because I felt uncomfortable and nervous while watching.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Apocalypse Now--maybe we're all a bit insane...
The film Apocalypse Now was intense. It started out relatively normal and then unraveled into something more than just war—it became insanity. Although it seems to be that the film goes from a more representation of reality to a presentation of reality, I think the presentation could definitely represent the psychological aspect of the Vietnam War. There seemed, in my mind, to be three major sequences of insanity that led up to the main sequence of insanity, which was the meeting and murder of Colonel Kurtz.
The first part of insanity was the idea of surfing during battle. Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore was obsessed with surfing, even to the point where he made Lance Johnson and others surf while there were bombs going off, machine guns firing and things burning everywhere. Kilgore depicted the first step of insanity because the bombs, machine guns and fire did not bother him—he would never flinch in battle.
The second part of insanity was the Playboy display at the one camp. When approaching the camp, it seemed like there were carnival lights. The small white lights around everything looked like a lit up Ferris wheel at an amusement park or carnival. These soldiers were treating war like a carnival. I know that soldiers have to do things to release feelings and try to keep their sanity, but the Playboy display became a crazy mob-fest.
The third part of insanity was shown at the final camp before reaching Colonel Kurtz. This camp, like the last, had carnival lights. They were mostly on the bridge. There were no commanding officers or people in charge and the soldiers there seemed like they were playing some kind of crazed kid war game, except they were actually killing each other. In this scene, it seemed like Hell. On Willard’s way to the docks of this camp, there were people in the water trying to climb onto the boat. This parallels with an interpretation of Heaven and Hell—those in Hell trying to grab onto anyone going to Heaven. Heaven was the boat, because it was a way out of their Hell.
All of this took place on a river that seemed to go further into the depths of insanity, which culminated when Willard met Kurtz and killed him. Willard himself, I think, tempted to be trapped by the insanity that he was witnessing. When he killed Kurtz he had war paint and barely any clothing on—he killed Kurtz with a machete and then came out to find the tribal people looking to him as a leader.
This film took me on a journey through insanity within psychological warfare as much as literal warfare. It reminded me of Lord of the Flies. Kurtz was going about war in “non-humane” ways, yet isn’t the whole notion of war not exactly humane? In Lord of the Flies the boys were rescued by a Navy person. He represented the civilized way of going about war, while they represented the inhumane or unnatural way, but really, what is humane war? Perhaps all of war is insane and maybe we all have a bit of insanity within us…
Note: My next blog will be about how different aspects of cinematography contributed to the feelings of insanity.
The first part of insanity was the idea of surfing during battle. Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore was obsessed with surfing, even to the point where he made Lance Johnson and others surf while there were bombs going off, machine guns firing and things burning everywhere. Kilgore depicted the first step of insanity because the bombs, machine guns and fire did not bother him—he would never flinch in battle.
The second part of insanity was the Playboy display at the one camp. When approaching the camp, it seemed like there were carnival lights. The small white lights around everything looked like a lit up Ferris wheel at an amusement park or carnival. These soldiers were treating war like a carnival. I know that soldiers have to do things to release feelings and try to keep their sanity, but the Playboy display became a crazy mob-fest.
The third part of insanity was shown at the final camp before reaching Colonel Kurtz. This camp, like the last, had carnival lights. They were mostly on the bridge. There were no commanding officers or people in charge and the soldiers there seemed like they were playing some kind of crazed kid war game, except they were actually killing each other. In this scene, it seemed like Hell. On Willard’s way to the docks of this camp, there were people in the water trying to climb onto the boat. This parallels with an interpretation of Heaven and Hell—those in Hell trying to grab onto anyone going to Heaven. Heaven was the boat, because it was a way out of their Hell.
All of this took place on a river that seemed to go further into the depths of insanity, which culminated when Willard met Kurtz and killed him. Willard himself, I think, tempted to be trapped by the insanity that he was witnessing. When he killed Kurtz he had war paint and barely any clothing on—he killed Kurtz with a machete and then came out to find the tribal people looking to him as a leader.
This film took me on a journey through insanity within psychological warfare as much as literal warfare. It reminded me of Lord of the Flies. Kurtz was going about war in “non-humane” ways, yet isn’t the whole notion of war not exactly humane? In Lord of the Flies the boys were rescued by a Navy person. He represented the civilized way of going about war, while they represented the inhumane or unnatural way, but really, what is humane war? Perhaps all of war is insane and maybe we all have a bit of insanity within us…
Note: My next blog will be about how different aspects of cinematography contributed to the feelings of insanity.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Movement in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
I woke up and opened my eyes. Everything was swirling together and I couldn’t focus. People were peering into my face. When I talked nobody heard me.
When The Diving Bell and the Butterfly began I saw what Jean-Dominique saw, which helped me better understand his situation. The camera movements in the opening scenes allowed me to feel like I was Jean-Dominique.
When the film started, the camera did not move a whole lot—because the camera was in essence, Jean-Dominique’s head, which was paralyzed. However, I thought the camera was moving because so much going on. Then I realized the movement was from the doctors and nurses in the room, not camera movement. When the doctor asked Jean-Dominique to follow his finger, we only see the finger when it comes in range of the camera lens.
After Jean-Dominique started to get accustomed to his new body, there were more tilts and pan shots. These shots are used to show point of view of a character, and they worked wonderfully to show the eye movement that Jean-Dominique had. These shots moved Jean-Dominique's head up and down and side to side, just as much as his eye would be able to.
Later in the film we were able to see everything that surrounds Jean-Dominique and we even get to see him out of his body, but the small amount of camera movement in the beginning was extremely effective. We, as the audience, are able to get into Jean-Dominique’s character because the use of movement set the stage for Jean-Dominique’s point-of-view.
When The Diving Bell and the Butterfly began I saw what Jean-Dominique saw, which helped me better understand his situation. The camera movements in the opening scenes allowed me to feel like I was Jean-Dominique.
When the film started, the camera did not move a whole lot—because the camera was in essence, Jean-Dominique’s head, which was paralyzed. However, I thought the camera was moving because so much going on. Then I realized the movement was from the doctors and nurses in the room, not camera movement. When the doctor asked Jean-Dominique to follow his finger, we only see the finger when it comes in range of the camera lens.
After Jean-Dominique started to get accustomed to his new body, there were more tilts and pan shots. These shots are used to show point of view of a character, and they worked wonderfully to show the eye movement that Jean-Dominique had. These shots moved Jean-Dominique's head up and down and side to side, just as much as his eye would be able to.
Later in the film we were able to see everything that surrounds Jean-Dominique and we even get to see him out of his body, but the small amount of camera movement in the beginning was extremely effective. We, as the audience, are able to get into Jean-Dominique’s character because the use of movement set the stage for Jean-Dominique’s point-of-view.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was a carefully constructed film that made me laugh outloud and to myself. At times I felt like I wanted to cry and by the end I didn't know what to feel. Films that make me feel like that are, in my opinion, worth watching. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly took the me on a journey through change the occurred in Jean-Dominique Bauby's life after having a stroke. That statement would not attract me to watch the film right away. But the film worked well because the point of view was from Jean-Dominique.
The choice of having a large majority of the movie filmed as if the camera were the eye of Jean-Dominique was brilliant. A few moments that were striking were when the doctor was sewing up one of Jean-Dominique's eyes.I saw this happen from the inside, as if I were seeing what it would look like to have a doctor sew my eye shut. A series of subtle, but striking moments were the times when people would stand out of Jean-Dominique's view because we would not see that person either.
Along with view, we not only saw everything from Jean-Dominique's view, but we heard everything from his view. We heard his thoughts, when other's could not. Most of the time his thoughts made me laugh because he would mock what people said to him, or say one thing in his mind and then blink the opposite answer. It was funny because people do exactly what he was doing, but we never hear people's thoughts.
At the end of the film I had so many feelings that I did not know what I felt--I felt a bit of triumph when his book was published, but I was saddened through the whole thing because he could not feel anything. I could not feel the touch of his children. He could not feel the stubble on his father's face. He could not feel the kiss of his lover.
The choice of having a large majority of the movie filmed as if the camera were the eye of Jean-Dominique was brilliant. A few moments that were striking were when the doctor was sewing up one of Jean-Dominique's eyes.I saw this happen from the inside, as if I were seeing what it would look like to have a doctor sew my eye shut. A series of subtle, but striking moments were the times when people would stand out of Jean-Dominique's view because we would not see that person either.
Along with view, we not only saw everything from Jean-Dominique's view, but we heard everything from his view. We heard his thoughts, when other's could not. Most of the time his thoughts made me laugh because he would mock what people said to him, or say one thing in his mind and then blink the opposite answer. It was funny because people do exactly what he was doing, but we never hear people's thoughts.
At the end of the film I had so many feelings that I did not know what I felt--I felt a bit of triumph when his book was published, but I was saddened through the whole thing because he could not feel anything. I could not feel the touch of his children. He could not feel the stubble on his father's face. He could not feel the kiss of his lover.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Psycho Remake
I feel torn by the Psycho remake. There were many aspects that I thought were very well done and many that were not. This remake was a shot-for-shot, which I really enjoyed. The camera angles meant so much in the original version, so I was pleased to find out that the remake had the same angles. I was pleased with the film in that sense, but there were many aspects that thoroughly disappointed me. The following will explain what I was disappointed with and why. (Maybe I'll even add some positive things in it.)
I did not like Vince Vaughn playing Norman Bates. If I were Alfred Hitchcock I think I would have felt dishonored, or at least disappointed. Vaughn's face and build did not suffice. He was too tall, not attractive enough and his face was much too round. (His lips also looked very strange in many scenes.) Since I was so distracted by how he looked as Norman Bates I probably did not pay enough attention to his acting. From what I remember, however, he was pretty good at his part.
The death scenes could have been really good if it were not for the cheesy, really horrible inserts of cloudy skies, permiscuous women and water buffalo. I was baffeled really, that those little snap shots were in there. I do not think they added anything but confusion for the viewer. Also, the camera did not stay on Marion's hand when it was slipping down the wall long enough. The shower scene was slow, which was great, but that part was cut short. I think the hand slipping down the wall showed the slipping away of everything- the money, Marion's life, her previous relationships, Norman's life, etc. In the shower scene, however, I did appreciate the aspect of real looking blood and the blood spot that stayed on the wall while Marion was falling down.
Those were the two main things that I really did not like, but as I said, there were things I appreciated about the film. The original version will always be better, but kudos to the new one for being alright in some parts.
P.S.- I also wanted to say that I liked how Marion fought back when Norman was stabbing her. It kind of seemed like Marion just took it in the original, but I think Marion was resisting in the remake and I'm glad about that.
I did not like Vince Vaughn playing Norman Bates. If I were Alfred Hitchcock I think I would have felt dishonored, or at least disappointed. Vaughn's face and build did not suffice. He was too tall, not attractive enough and his face was much too round. (His lips also looked very strange in many scenes.) Since I was so distracted by how he looked as Norman Bates I probably did not pay enough attention to his acting. From what I remember, however, he was pretty good at his part.
The death scenes could have been really good if it were not for the cheesy, really horrible inserts of cloudy skies, permiscuous women and water buffalo. I was baffeled really, that those little snap shots were in there. I do not think they added anything but confusion for the viewer. Also, the camera did not stay on Marion's hand when it was slipping down the wall long enough. The shower scene was slow, which was great, but that part was cut short. I think the hand slipping down the wall showed the slipping away of everything- the money, Marion's life, her previous relationships, Norman's life, etc. In the shower scene, however, I did appreciate the aspect of real looking blood and the blood spot that stayed on the wall while Marion was falling down.
Those were the two main things that I really did not like, but as I said, there were things I appreciated about the film. The original version will always be better, but kudos to the new one for being alright in some parts.
P.S.- I also wanted to say that I liked how Marion fought back when Norman was stabbing her. It kind of seemed like Marion just took it in the original, but I think Marion was resisting in the remake and I'm glad about that.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Film Review of Psycho
There are many dimensions of the film Psycho that play into how the film is viewed and critiqued. A 2008 horror film fanatic of gore and thrill may find Psycho to be less than appealing because of the minimal stabbing during the murder scenes and the relatively small amount of blood shown. While watching, it may be easy for somebody to figure out that Norman Bates is both himself and his mother. It seems people like films that have complex plots that are hard to figure out. Looking beyond the possible gore, thrill and complex plot flaws, Psycho was filmed with an eye of care for each scene and film shot.**
Each scene has an angle that allows the viewer to see something new...something artistic. The use of silence and the spoken word is extremely effective. During the scenes where Bates removes Marion's body and the evidence of the murder, it is mostly silent, which helps create an uncomfortable tone. Being uncomfortable while watching a film is something that is difficult to evoke. It seems to me, a lot of films can easily make viewers scared, excited, nervous, happy or sad. Making people uncomfortable with themselves or the scene is more difficult. Unless it is a film that speaks directly to the viewer (i.e.- a film or documentary about injustices in the world may make somebody feel uncomfortable with the current state of their life), the film may not make people feel uncomfortable. I have seen many films and television shows that include cleaning and disposal of the evidence and or body. Usually I think it is crazy and hope that the person does not get away with the crime, but in Psycho I felt discomfort. It felt more eerie. It was annoying almost.
The spoken word was effective during the scene where Marion is driving out of Phoenix and she is thinking through everything people said that day. The scenes show her face in the car, or her view out of the front windshield. Her thoughts are the music in these scenes. Right before she arrives at Bates Motel, Marion is driving and thinking. Rain starts to fall on her car and it looks like blood in the beginning. That scene packs in so many different aspects of the film. The rain seems like blood at first, which seems to foreshadow the shower murder scene. The rain gets heavier and falls harder on her windshield, which could symbolize how deep she has gotten into her problem. Over all Psycho may not have a complex story line, but film angles, uses of silence and spoken word help create a complex scenes for the viewer to unpack.
**Because I'm not a fan of gore and thrill, I was satisfied with Psycho.
Each scene has an angle that allows the viewer to see something new...something artistic. The use of silence and the spoken word is extremely effective. During the scenes where Bates removes Marion's body and the evidence of the murder, it is mostly silent, which helps create an uncomfortable tone. Being uncomfortable while watching a film is something that is difficult to evoke. It seems to me, a lot of films can easily make viewers scared, excited, nervous, happy or sad. Making people uncomfortable with themselves or the scene is more difficult. Unless it is a film that speaks directly to the viewer (i.e.- a film or documentary about injustices in the world may make somebody feel uncomfortable with the current state of their life), the film may not make people feel uncomfortable. I have seen many films and television shows that include cleaning and disposal of the evidence and or body. Usually I think it is crazy and hope that the person does not get away with the crime, but in Psycho I felt discomfort. It felt more eerie. It was annoying almost.
The spoken word was effective during the scene where Marion is driving out of Phoenix and she is thinking through everything people said that day. The scenes show her face in the car, or her view out of the front windshield. Her thoughts are the music in these scenes. Right before she arrives at Bates Motel, Marion is driving and thinking. Rain starts to fall on her car and it looks like blood in the beginning. That scene packs in so many different aspects of the film. The rain seems like blood at first, which seems to foreshadow the shower murder scene. The rain gets heavier and falls harder on her windshield, which could symbolize how deep she has gotten into her problem. Over all Psycho may not have a complex story line, but film angles, uses of silence and spoken word help create a complex scenes for the viewer to unpack.
**Because I'm not a fan of gore and thrill, I was satisfied with Psycho.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
