Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Moving Narrative 2: Ida
I think at the end of the day, I would say Ida is a good film. It's not a great film, and it's certainly not a bad movie, but I would say for what its worth, I enjoyed watching it.
The film in question has been presented in a 4:3 ratio that gives the film a very old feel; helped by the fact the film is set in Poland 1962. everything feels dirty, forgotten miserable. The black and white gives off a very depressing mood, and general story doesn't help much either. I'm starting to see an unfortunate trend in indy films that they feel its more "realistic" for characters to emote as little as possible and be strangely calm about nearly everything. That's why Wanda was extremely refreshing. She laughed, she got angry, she nearly cried, she felt like an actual person. Too her credit, Ida is believable too and her personal struggle was actually pretty engaging.
The lighting and framing was fantastic. They took full advantage of the lack of colour to highlight different areas of the film in different shades to create a "noir-esque style." The framing is also very precise and the shots are long enough for you to soak in what is happening. The issue with the film is, despite it being very short, its felt much longer. The film can become very dull (4 out of the six people n my row fell asleep at one point) and I feel this could have been prevented with either cutting the film as soon as returns to the church, or creating more interactions and a separate narrative between Wanda and Ida who I thought had great chemistry.
I don't really have much else to say about this one, but for what it's worth, it's a good film bogged down by little things that stop it from being great. I would also like to know why so many indy films have something against soundtracks in their movies. I imagine it can be expensive, but a little music wouldn't kill you. Ida's little moments where they had music playing were great and really fit the tone of the film. there should have been much more.
The film in question has been presented in a 4:3 ratio that gives the film a very old feel; helped by the fact the film is set in Poland 1962. everything feels dirty, forgotten miserable. The black and white gives off a very depressing mood, and general story doesn't help much either. I'm starting to see an unfortunate trend in indy films that they feel its more "realistic" for characters to emote as little as possible and be strangely calm about nearly everything. That's why Wanda was extremely refreshing. She laughed, she got angry, she nearly cried, she felt like an actual person. Too her credit, Ida is believable too and her personal struggle was actually pretty engaging.
The lighting and framing was fantastic. They took full advantage of the lack of colour to highlight different areas of the film in different shades to create a "noir-esque style." The framing is also very precise and the shots are long enough for you to soak in what is happening. The issue with the film is, despite it being very short, its felt much longer. The film can become very dull (4 out of the six people n my row fell asleep at one point) and I feel this could have been prevented with either cutting the film as soon as returns to the church, or creating more interactions and a separate narrative between Wanda and Ida who I thought had great chemistry.
I don't really have much else to say about this one, but for what it's worth, it's a good film bogged down by little things that stop it from being great. I would also like to know why so many indy films have something against soundtracks in their movies. I imagine it can be expensive, but a little music wouldn't kill you. Ida's little moments where they had music playing were great and really fit the tone of the film. there should have been much more.
Monday, 19 October 2015
Contexts of Practice 2: Censorship
The act of censorship is a moral issue that still affects are society today. Very rarely is there a simple "right and wrong" answer to such things. There's the obvious political censorship which is typically an abuse of power and authority, but what about censorship in the media? What is okay, and not okay to show to children?
When I was younger, I vividly remember an example of this surrounding the rapper Eminem. My father used to leave to leave music video channels on, back when we still had sky in our house. It always featured different themes in which different songs would be highlighted, and at one point theres was a whole lot of Eminem on the channel.
Depending on the time of the day, I would hear two different versions of the song. If for whatever reason, the song was played in the morning or during the day, I would hear a censored version in which Eminem's voice would "mysteriously" vanish when ever he was about to say a "offensive" word. Generally these were curse words, even damn was censored at times. I always recall other singers get censored whenever they made mention of anything gay, but I cannot find any source. If you listened to the song in the evening, then everything would as it was intended as it was past TV's watershed time.
Eminem isn't the only singer to be effected by this. Usually songs with high levels of cussing tend not to make into the mainstream, but there are always exceptions. Rise Against the Machine's Killing in the Name must have been a nightmare for radio stations when it got the Christmas number one spot. The question is though, is it right to censor this kind of material? Even if it's only for certain parts of the day.
There is a certain of artistic integrity that goes into this kind of thing. Context is important really. Was Eminem in support of this? Was he only interested in the money? But I personally have real issue in this context. However you feel about bad language, I think most would agree it shouldn't just be thrown in kids faces like its nothing. Some of these words carry a lot meaning and history, and youth aren't always aware of what they are saying. Also, considering the fact that the song was never completely edited down, and most of imagery in these music videos were left intact (which could range from sexual to violent) I can agree with the sentiment that perhaps this shouldn't be aired at this time of day. Then again, why was the song played at these times at all, and not just in the evening when it would have been acceptable for the censors? I think our old friend Mr. Greed probably had something to do with it.
When I was younger, I vividly remember an example of this surrounding the rapper Eminem. My father used to leave to leave music video channels on, back when we still had sky in our house. It always featured different themes in which different songs would be highlighted, and at one point theres was a whole lot of Eminem on the channel.
Depending on the time of the day, I would hear two different versions of the song. If for whatever reason, the song was played in the morning or during the day, I would hear a censored version in which Eminem's voice would "mysteriously" vanish when ever he was about to say a "offensive" word. Generally these were curse words, even damn was censored at times. I always recall other singers get censored whenever they made mention of anything gay, but I cannot find any source. If you listened to the song in the evening, then everything would as it was intended as it was past TV's watershed time.
Eminem isn't the only singer to be effected by this. Usually songs with high levels of cussing tend not to make into the mainstream, but there are always exceptions. Rise Against the Machine's Killing in the Name must have been a nightmare for radio stations when it got the Christmas number one spot. The question is though, is it right to censor this kind of material? Even if it's only for certain parts of the day.
There is a certain of artistic integrity that goes into this kind of thing. Context is important really. Was Eminem in support of this? Was he only interested in the money? But I personally have real issue in this context. However you feel about bad language, I think most would agree it shouldn't just be thrown in kids faces like its nothing. Some of these words carry a lot meaning and history, and youth aren't always aware of what they are saying. Also, considering the fact that the song was never completely edited down, and most of imagery in these music videos were left intact (which could range from sexual to violent) I can agree with the sentiment that perhaps this shouldn't be aired at this time of day. Then again, why was the song played at these times at all, and not just in the evening when it would have been acceptable for the censors? I think our old friend Mr. Greed probably had something to do with it.
Wednesday, 14 October 2015
Moving Narrative 2: Metro Manila
Metro Manila had three key things that made it work: The characters, the well-built tension, and the cinematography. This was definitely the most straight forward film we've seen so far, and I must confess it was very refreshing, but that certainly didn't take anything away from the movie. It shows you don't have to be overcomplicated or disjointed to put out an intelligent film.
The characters are immediately sympathetic. Their in a shitty situation and are forced to leave their home and try and start a new life in a strange city. It's a classic and very real story of poverty. There are films that can sometimes over play this card. When that happens its creates a gap between the audience and viewer. Here though, the film is smart enough to give the viewer occasional moments of relief and hope; this creates a stronger connection to characters as not only are we not constantly anxious as to what is happening, but most people can relate to hardship and moments of joy. The slow burn to the family - and most importantly - the fathers final actions are totally believable as we have seen everything the world has thrown at him, to the point where I found myself bur-grudgingly agreeing that the father had no choice but to do what he did.
Going back to the tension in the film, it constantly feels ever present. From the very start when we meet these characters and they travel to the city, there is this immediate feeling of dread. What is going to go wrong? This lends itself to the shots, as we first see the father and mother giving each other reassuring smiles, the camera purposely picks out shots of advertisements, people rushing past one another, large and imposing buildings, it gives a sense of alienation in a place they don't understand and likely don't belong. Many of the shots feel up close and personal with the characters. The camera is not afraid to get right up the characters faces, showing their emotional range. It feels claustrophobic at times and forces you to engage with what is in front of you. At other times, we get some range and gorgeous establishing shots that really set the tone for the scene. The cinematography and the tension (and occasional relief) go hand in hand through out the film.
Metro Manila does most everything right. Despite the poverty storyline being one that has been done a thousand times in cinema, the director has shown that with the right cast, cinematographer and direction, any story can feel as fresh as the first time you've seen it. It isn't about the story itself, it's about how you tell it.
The characters are immediately sympathetic. Their in a shitty situation and are forced to leave their home and try and start a new life in a strange city. It's a classic and very real story of poverty. There are films that can sometimes over play this card. When that happens its creates a gap between the audience and viewer. Here though, the film is smart enough to give the viewer occasional moments of relief and hope; this creates a stronger connection to characters as not only are we not constantly anxious as to what is happening, but most people can relate to hardship and moments of joy. The slow burn to the family - and most importantly - the fathers final actions are totally believable as we have seen everything the world has thrown at him, to the point where I found myself bur-grudgingly agreeing that the father had no choice but to do what he did.
Going back to the tension in the film, it constantly feels ever present. From the very start when we meet these characters and they travel to the city, there is this immediate feeling of dread. What is going to go wrong? This lends itself to the shots, as we first see the father and mother giving each other reassuring smiles, the camera purposely picks out shots of advertisements, people rushing past one another, large and imposing buildings, it gives a sense of alienation in a place they don't understand and likely don't belong. Many of the shots feel up close and personal with the characters. The camera is not afraid to get right up the characters faces, showing their emotional range. It feels claustrophobic at times and forces you to engage with what is in front of you. At other times, we get some range and gorgeous establishing shots that really set the tone for the scene. The cinematography and the tension (and occasional relief) go hand in hand through out the film.
Metro Manila does most everything right. Despite the poverty storyline being one that has been done a thousand times in cinema, the director has shown that with the right cast, cinematographer and direction, any story can feel as fresh as the first time you've seen it. It isn't about the story itself, it's about how you tell it.
Monday, 12 October 2015
Practical Screencraft 2: Field of View Experiment
This posts covers my attempts with playing around with field of view. I tried to practice and find the differences I could make by keeping two figures in the same position, but changing the lens and Zoom. The following are the results.
Lenses Used: Standard 24-50mm and 24-70mm
The first shot is the default lens. The camera is at the end of the table. The figures are about 2 inches away from each other, but the distance looks great thanks to the angle of the shot.
This is the Other lens and I have zoomed in as much as possible. There is still a distance between them, but it seems slightly closer, yet more distant. I attribute this too the slight change of angle (the other lens was much larger and it moved the camera.) I also believe the focus played a part in the difference between the images, as I show below.
The actually seem slightly closer now with the focus of the shot being altered. The shot above says to me the figure in the front is walking away, while this one shows the figure from behind is approaching.
This is the shot zoomed in as much as possible, using the original lens instead.
There isn't a significant difference between the two. The rest are size shots and messing with the perspective. the lighting is poor so apologies ahead.
Lenses Used: Standard 24-50mm and 24-70mm
Contexts of Practice 2: Canadian Cinema
Canada, oh Canada. Our great and native land. Not for film apparently. One of the first things I discovered when researching this little topic is that it is extremely difficult for a Canadian film to receive distribution due to the fact Hollywood already owns a monopoly over the country.
"Canadian cinema has existed within an environment where access to capital for production, to the marketplace for distribution and to theatres for exhibition has been extremely difficult. It has experienced a concurrent history of struggle against an entertainment monopoly (Hollywood) and a search for an audience that remains largely unaware of a domestic industry."
They've been kind of screwed out the door, but like the saying goes "life finds a way." The same can be said for Canada's film industry. However, I am getting ahead of myself. Let's start from a little background on the country itself.
A Brief History:
The natives of the land were Inuits who travelled to the land from Asia; but as usual, Europeans soon came over and f***** all of that up. From the Vikings to the English to the French, they all attempted to claim the land at some point. The British and French had their war (nothing ever changes) and eventually the British took Canada when the war ended. However, France were permitted two islands in the Canadian border as they had already settled there. Over time these restriction lessened, leading to French culture becoming far more prominent in the country.
Despite France joining the Americans in the war for independence, Canada stayed loyal to Britain, refusing to join the 13 states that would one day be part of the USA. A new border was created between the two nations, and at the same time the population in Canada exploded in size. Over the years with discovery of gold and cheaper land in upper Canada, waves of immigrants made their way over to the country hoping to find their fortune. This is something that still happens today, as Canada has an extremely high immigration rate.
Early Days:
One of the first films produced in Canada was entitled "Living Canada." It was a series of 35 scenes that were created to encourage the British to emigrate to the country. This was the primary films produced in the country and it lasted up until the 1930's. While private film companies in Canada started to sprout up, at the same time, America moved in to use the country as a backdrop for their productions.
Between 1917-1923, there was a rise in Canadian nationalism due to the first world war. The country (similar to England, Germany and America) started to widely release newsreels about current events. This caused a mini boom in film production, spearheaded by Adanac Films who produced three feature films; one of which was the anti-Communist picture "The Great Shadow." Ernest Shipman, who had already seen great success in the US before returning to his native land, produced a film called "Back to God's Country" that took earnings of over 300% of what it took to make the film, marking it one of the first huge financial success' in Canadian film scene.
There is a sense of something blooming in the country. While Canadian cinema did not differ massively to the US in terms of style, this was paying off for the better at this time. However, this early success was not to last as all of Shipman's films did not make nearly the money the first did, and his final feature actually made a loss. This marked the end of big productions for some time.
A Brief History:
The natives of the land were Inuits who travelled to the land from Asia; but as usual, Europeans soon came over and f***** all of that up. From the Vikings to the English to the French, they all attempted to claim the land at some point. The British and French had their war (nothing ever changes) and eventually the British took Canada when the war ended. However, France were permitted two islands in the Canadian border as they had already settled there. Over time these restriction lessened, leading to French culture becoming far more prominent in the country.
Despite France joining the Americans in the war for independence, Canada stayed loyal to Britain, refusing to join the 13 states that would one day be part of the USA. A new border was created between the two nations, and at the same time the population in Canada exploded in size. Over the years with discovery of gold and cheaper land in upper Canada, waves of immigrants made their way over to the country hoping to find their fortune. This is something that still happens today, as Canada has an extremely high immigration rate.
Early Days:
One of the first films produced in Canada was entitled "Living Canada." It was a series of 35 scenes that were created to encourage the British to emigrate to the country. This was the primary films produced in the country and it lasted up until the 1930's. While private film companies in Canada started to sprout up, at the same time, America moved in to use the country as a backdrop for their productions.
Between 1917-1923, there was a rise in Canadian nationalism due to the first world war. The country (similar to England, Germany and America) started to widely release newsreels about current events. This caused a mini boom in film production, spearheaded by Adanac Films who produced three feature films; one of which was the anti-Communist picture "The Great Shadow." Ernest Shipman, who had already seen great success in the US before returning to his native land, produced a film called "Back to God's Country" that took earnings of over 300% of what it took to make the film, marking it one of the first huge financial success' in Canadian film scene.
There is a sense of something blooming in the country. While Canadian cinema did not differ massively to the US in terms of style, this was paying off for the better at this time. However, this early success was not to last as all of Shipman's films did not make nearly the money the first did, and his final feature actually made a loss. This marked the end of big productions for some time.
"Through the rest of the 1920s, production in Canada was mainly restricted to inserts for American newsreels, sponsored short films, and documentaries produced by the government motion picture bureaus and a handful of private companies. There was one brief resurgence in 1927 when private investors contributed $500,000 to produce Carry on Sergeant!, a silent drama about Canadians in the First World War, written and directed by British author and cartoonist Bruce Bairnsfather. Though well received by critics, it came at the dawn of the sound era and died within weeks of its release."
After this, there was strange period of nearly total inaction when it came to Canada's film scene. The commercial industry had died, along with several distributors being shut down, the governments own motion picture bureau had fallen into disuse, and eventually closed down for a period of time. Of course there were still artists and filmmakers who attempted to keep the art form alive in the country, but noting seemed to get the movement going again.
The only notable use of film in this era cropped up in 1939 at the start of the Second World War. Newsreels were in high demand to cover the events of the conflict, and the National Film Board of Canada was created for just that reason.
The only notable use of film in this era cropped up in 1939 at the start of the Second World War. Newsreels were in high demand to cover the events of the conflict, and the National Film Board of Canada was created for just that reason.
"In 1938, the federal government commissioned Scottish filmmaker John Grierson — who had coined the term “documentary,” and had been head of the Empire Marketing Board and the General Post Office in Britain — to study the state of film production in Canada. He wrote a report that year that led to the creation of the NFB in May 1939, and was named the Board’s first film commissioner in October 1939."
It's original purpose was merely to help the distribution of war time films, but 1941 transitioned into the role of production. The National Film Board of Canada still exists today, and primarily produces documentaries, animations and occasional short films. It's a staple in the country that has survived even through films darkest eras, having won over 5000 international awards, including a dozen Academy Awards. Despite all of it's success though, the company has not become or helped others become the main distributor of films in Canada, as foreign films still control the market.
A small note; in 1928 Odeon cinemas was founded in the country, but was later sold to an organisation in England, further helping to freeze the film market in Canada.
Rising Again:
In 1947, discussion began wether America could start using Canada as a backdrop for film production again. Thanks to this and an economic boom for Canada following the war, there was a renewed interest in the art form. After several years of a resurgence of filmmaking, the government implemented a 50% capital cost allowance in order to encourage private film companies to be formed.
Many english speaking directors migrated from Canada for work. Sir Tyrone Guthrie and Sidney Furie who both directed numerous low budget films in the country began their carers in the country. However, the want for a revival in Canadian cinema simply wasn't strong enough and Sidney migrated to England in 1960, saying: "I wanted to start a Canadian Film Industry but nobody cared." A sad sentiment that would continue to live on. Canada continued to lose Canadian grown talent to England and Hollywood, due to a lack of funding and interest that kept on fluctuating. The national film board was starting to win awards for their work, but this was not nearly enough to reel in a wide audience.
However, things were about to change again. The early 1960's saw the first Canadian film to be picked up for US distribution: "The Mask." The National Film Board was still primarily focused on documentary filmmaking, were starting to really explore short film projects and animations. A number of these film focused on post-war Canada, such "Nobody Waved-Goodbye." A film about a teenager and his girlfriend who are unhappy in suburbia and try to make it out on their own. Film was used as it has nearly always been used. To represent the fears, the culture and people of the time.
There was an abandonment of low-budget films and budgets for films in Canada inflated. This back fired, as these films were reviewed poorly, starting a debate on whether Canada should have a film industry in the first place. Despite this, the start of this new era saw two commercial hits and academy award nominations. Another issue brought up was a lot of the films of this era suffered from an identity crisis. Inherently, many critics felt that the industry was moving away from what made these films Canadian over what made them go main-stream. This grew worse and worse, and with continued poor reviews for films created in this era, the box office suffered as well. By 1982, the tax shelter was reduced to 50%, marking the end of another era.
Today?:
Canada today has a string indy film scene. A great advantage the country still has access to professional crews, state-of-the-art studio space and infrastructure, tax breaks and generally lower dollar — has become a multi-billion-dollar business built over 50 years. There is still a great difficulty for these film to hit mainstream, but there is feeling that filmmakers in the country have moved past that desire.
- James cameron
- Earnest Shipman
- David Cronenberg
- Atom Egoyan
- Mack Sennet
Notable Films:
- The Great Shadow (1920)
- Nobody Waved Goodbye (1964)
- Jesus of Montreal (1989)
- Dead Ringers (1988)
- Scott Pilgrim Vs the World (2010)
- Porky's (1982)
Sources:
HISTORICA CANADA. (2013) The History of the Canadian Film Industry. [Online] Available from: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-history-of-film-in-canada/ [Accessed 10th October.]
JUST LANDED. (2015) A Summary of Canadian History. [Online] Available from: https://www.justlanded.com/english/Canada/Canada-Guide/Culture/The-history-of-Canada [Accessed 10th October.]
Nobody Waved Goodbye. (1964) Film. Directed by Don Owen. [DVD] Canada: Columbia Pictures.
Shultz, D. (2006) Filmography of World History. Westport USA: ABC-CLIO
A small note; in 1928 Odeon cinemas was founded in the country, but was later sold to an organisation in England, further helping to freeze the film market in Canada.
Rising Again:
In 1947, discussion began wether America could start using Canada as a backdrop for film production again. Thanks to this and an economic boom for Canada following the war, there was a renewed interest in the art form. After several years of a resurgence of filmmaking, the government implemented a 50% capital cost allowance in order to encourage private film companies to be formed.
Many english speaking directors migrated from Canada for work. Sir Tyrone Guthrie and Sidney Furie who both directed numerous low budget films in the country began their carers in the country. However, the want for a revival in Canadian cinema simply wasn't strong enough and Sidney migrated to England in 1960, saying: "I wanted to start a Canadian Film Industry but nobody cared." A sad sentiment that would continue to live on. Canada continued to lose Canadian grown talent to England and Hollywood, due to a lack of funding and interest that kept on fluctuating. The national film board was starting to win awards for their work, but this was not nearly enough to reel in a wide audience.
However, things were about to change again. The early 1960's saw the first Canadian film to be picked up for US distribution: "The Mask." The National Film Board was still primarily focused on documentary filmmaking, were starting to really explore short film projects and animations. A number of these film focused on post-war Canada, such "Nobody Waved-Goodbye." A film about a teenager and his girlfriend who are unhappy in suburbia and try to make it out on their own. Film was used as it has nearly always been used. To represent the fears, the culture and people of the time.
"Production throughout Canada also began to flourish in other ways. The aesthetic advances made by the French “New Wave” led to a more “personalist” cinema, and the development of cheap, mobile 16mm cameras allowed more access to a medium that had hitherto been the preserve of a few. A number of low-budget features were produced across the country, mainly on university campuses. The Bitter Ash (1963), the first film made by Larry Kent while he was studying theatre at the University of British Columbia, created the most controversy. The sex scenes in the film turned it into an overnight sensation. Kent went on to direct two more features on the West Coast before moving to Montréal."The government continued to show support for a film industry in Canada, and by 1974 they raised the capital cost allowance for film work from 60% to 100%. Investment in Canadian production increased dramatically, as even at a loss there could potentially be profit to be made. This led to same specific rules though.
"For a film to qualify as Canadian, it had to be at least 75 minutes long, have at least one producer and two-thirds of the “above the line” creative team who were Canadian, and perform at least 75 per cent of the production and post-production services in Canada."With a risk of potential losses, it was understandable why there were so many specifics to qualify the films a "Canadian." It didn't help matters that so many of the films produced by the Canadian National Film Board were commercial failures. However, because the Americans had such a stranglehold on the theatrical marketplace in Canada, it was near impossible for a Canadian production to make a profit. Instead of discouraging this time, this gave those inside the industry "us or them" mentality and turned artistic projects to more commercial work instead.
There was an abandonment of low-budget films and budgets for films in Canada inflated. This back fired, as these films were reviewed poorly, starting a debate on whether Canada should have a film industry in the first place. Despite this, the start of this new era saw two commercial hits and academy award nominations. Another issue brought up was a lot of the films of this era suffered from an identity crisis. Inherently, many critics felt that the industry was moving away from what made these films Canadian over what made them go main-stream. This grew worse and worse, and with continued poor reviews for films created in this era, the box office suffered as well. By 1982, the tax shelter was reduced to 50%, marking the end of another era.
Today?:
Canada today has a string indy film scene. A great advantage the country still has access to professional crews, state-of-the-art studio space and infrastructure, tax breaks and generally lower dollar — has become a multi-billion-dollar business built over 50 years. There is still a great difficulty for these film to hit mainstream, but there is feeling that filmmakers in the country have moved past that desire.
"In the 1960s, no more than two or three Canadian films a year received proper distribution in the Toronto market. In 2011, more than 50 Canadian movies played the Greater Toronto Area, the largest market in the world for English-Canadian films."Notable directors:
- James cameron
- Earnest Shipman
- David Cronenberg
- Atom Egoyan
- Mack Sennet
Notable Films:
- The Great Shadow (1920)
- Nobody Waved Goodbye (1964)
- Jesus of Montreal (1989)
- Dead Ringers (1988)
- Scott Pilgrim Vs the World (2010)
- Porky's (1982)
Sources:
HISTORICA CANADA. (2013) The History of the Canadian Film Industry. [Online] Available from: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-history-of-film-in-canada/ [Accessed 10th October.]
JUST LANDED. (2015) A Summary of Canadian History. [Online] Available from: https://www.justlanded.com/english/Canada/Canada-Guide/Culture/The-history-of-Canada [Accessed 10th October.]
Nobody Waved Goodbye. (1964) Film. Directed by Don Owen. [DVD] Canada: Columbia Pictures.
Shultz, D. (2006) Filmography of World History. Westport USA: ABC-CLIO
Saturday, 10 October 2015
Moving Narrative 2: Dog Tooth
A dog can be aggressive, playful, loyal, viscous or cowardly, but in the right hands a dog can be moulded into anything that you like. This film tries to demonstrate that the same could be said of people.
(Sorry if this comes across as ramblings, I've been struggling to get my thoughts about this film sorted.)
To the three children of a factory manager, the house and the garden they live in is their whole reality. They believe in a world that would cause most people on the outside to scratch their head in confusion. They have been cut off from all reality beyond their garden wall, and have been spoon fed information that not only keeps them obedient, but fearful of whats outside, killing off any desire to explore.
Philosophers still argue over the concept of reality, whether the lives were living now are any truer than a dream, or have anymore validity than what we read in stories. How can we truly argue that the reality of someone who is "insane" is any less true than our perception of the world? How could you begin to explain to the children in this film that nearly everything they have been brought up to believe is in fact a lie? In a way, it is only a lie to the outside, but to them, it is the absolute truth.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
― Albert Einstein
Getting away from the philosophy aspect, the film felt very still. I cant really recall any tracking shots (though there may have been) and it plays well into small area the characters are confined in. You are constantly reminded that this place is abnormal, just before you can sucked into the seemingly loving family atmosphere. Up until the end, the film is shot in very bright environments, some rooms have a blinding white as the primary color, perhaps signifying the innocence of the children?
When we did reach the climax, we finally see the father character for a brief moment lose control. A child has left (perhaps not the first one, depending on whether the referenced Brother was real, and his actual fate.) What really stuck out to me though was the final shot and the lingering question. The girl has placed herself in the trunk the night, but we do not see her leave. Did she suffocate? Is she too scared to get out? Was she about too just before the camera cut?
Too me, this represents a very modern question of morality with the continued advancement of technology. Is reality truly better than the world we can create? Is it better to live out the rest of our lives in utter bliss, or should we face the world outside knowing that it could lead to utter misery? Are you accomplishing, or rather, truly living in anything other than reality? Perhaps I'm over thinking it, but that part really stuck out to me. It's a question I've debated with myself many times as I try to write stories of my own. Am I just dodging the real world by creating a new reality? Is that necessarily a bad thing?
(Sorry if this comes across as ramblings, I've been struggling to get my thoughts about this film sorted.)
To the three children of a factory manager, the house and the garden they live in is their whole reality. They believe in a world that would cause most people on the outside to scratch their head in confusion. They have been cut off from all reality beyond their garden wall, and have been spoon fed information that not only keeps them obedient, but fearful of whats outside, killing off any desire to explore.
Philosophers still argue over the concept of reality, whether the lives were living now are any truer than a dream, or have anymore validity than what we read in stories. How can we truly argue that the reality of someone who is "insane" is any less true than our perception of the world? How could you begin to explain to the children in this film that nearly everything they have been brought up to believe is in fact a lie? In a way, it is only a lie to the outside, but to them, it is the absolute truth.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
― Albert Einstein
Getting away from the philosophy aspect, the film felt very still. I cant really recall any tracking shots (though there may have been) and it plays well into small area the characters are confined in. You are constantly reminded that this place is abnormal, just before you can sucked into the seemingly loving family atmosphere. Up until the end, the film is shot in very bright environments, some rooms have a blinding white as the primary color, perhaps signifying the innocence of the children?
When we did reach the climax, we finally see the father character for a brief moment lose control. A child has left (perhaps not the first one, depending on whether the referenced Brother was real, and his actual fate.) What really stuck out to me though was the final shot and the lingering question. The girl has placed herself in the trunk the night, but we do not see her leave. Did she suffocate? Is she too scared to get out? Was she about too just before the camera cut?
Too me, this represents a very modern question of morality with the continued advancement of technology. Is reality truly better than the world we can create? Is it better to live out the rest of our lives in utter bliss, or should we face the world outside knowing that it could lead to utter misery? Are you accomplishing, or rather, truly living in anything other than reality? Perhaps I'm over thinking it, but that part really stuck out to me. It's a question I've debated with myself many times as I try to write stories of my own. Am I just dodging the real world by creating a new reality? Is that necessarily a bad thing?
Wednesday, 7 October 2015
Moving Narrative 2: Force Majeure
(This is simply a bunch of notes on my impression of the film.)
I felt the sense of "the role of the man" was strong throughout the film. The mechanics of the family were also felt, but I personally felt masculine identity was the most analysed throughout the movie.
Traditionally, the man is viewed as the provider, the protecter of his family. This is something that is still subconsciously felt amongst most men today. Now it manifests more in a sense of being "strong" and macho. So in the opening act of the film when the father flees from oncoming danger and leaves his family behind, it becomes nearly impossible for him to accept. The simple idealism of his role in the family is shattered to pieces, and so he creates a new reality inside his own mind in order to patch up his mistakes. He tries to justify his actions and twist so they seem like he really was protecting them, but eventually it becomes impossible for him to deny anymore and he finally breaks down. He breaks down because in his own eyes he is not a man: he is a failure. This disrupts the family too, as their view of their father is shattered as well. There is a growing rift between the father, the mother and the children as their own fears and frustrations continue to grow.
The film is beautifully shot. The director and cinematographer are able to utilise the mountains to create this sense of isolation even when the family is all together. There are shots, like near the end of the film when the family ski into the fog, that are able to separate all of them, helping to demonstrate this fractured state. Their alone in their own worlds as they try to deal with the problem at hand. The father finds solace with his friend, but it is more because his friend is supporting his warped distortion of events. The mother has little to no one to talk to, so she recedes into herself, and the children are nothing more than spectators to the whole thing. Or rather, that is what I fist thought.
At one point as the father breaks down, he even admits to being unfaithful to his wife and hates the person he's become. In many cases, this is where the relationship between the two would be broken beyond repair, however, the children come in to console their father, and literally pull their mother in the join the embrace. This signifies one thing to me: the children are the glue in the family. They keep the parents together, as they don't dare to hurt their children. In the final scene when the father "rescues" the mother, it helps restore the beliefs the family originally had, and they continue on as they were. A slightly dysfunctional, if not loving family. However, the father, who in the film admits he is inherently dishonest, admits to his son he is a smoker in the last lines of the film. Some can view this as a negative influence as he is smoking, but others (like myself) can see that that the father is no longer lying. Now because of this, he can work to become the person he wants to be, as he has accepted the person that he is.
I felt the sense of "the role of the man" was strong throughout the film. The mechanics of the family were also felt, but I personally felt masculine identity was the most analysed throughout the movie.
Traditionally, the man is viewed as the provider, the protecter of his family. This is something that is still subconsciously felt amongst most men today. Now it manifests more in a sense of being "strong" and macho. So in the opening act of the film when the father flees from oncoming danger and leaves his family behind, it becomes nearly impossible for him to accept. The simple idealism of his role in the family is shattered to pieces, and so he creates a new reality inside his own mind in order to patch up his mistakes. He tries to justify his actions and twist so they seem like he really was protecting them, but eventually it becomes impossible for him to deny anymore and he finally breaks down. He breaks down because in his own eyes he is not a man: he is a failure. This disrupts the family too, as their view of their father is shattered as well. There is a growing rift between the father, the mother and the children as their own fears and frustrations continue to grow.
The film is beautifully shot. The director and cinematographer are able to utilise the mountains to create this sense of isolation even when the family is all together. There are shots, like near the end of the film when the family ski into the fog, that are able to separate all of them, helping to demonstrate this fractured state. Their alone in their own worlds as they try to deal with the problem at hand. The father finds solace with his friend, but it is more because his friend is supporting his warped distortion of events. The mother has little to no one to talk to, so she recedes into herself, and the children are nothing more than spectators to the whole thing. Or rather, that is what I fist thought.
At one point as the father breaks down, he even admits to being unfaithful to his wife and hates the person he's become. In many cases, this is where the relationship between the two would be broken beyond repair, however, the children come in to console their father, and literally pull their mother in the join the embrace. This signifies one thing to me: the children are the glue in the family. They keep the parents together, as they don't dare to hurt their children. In the final scene when the father "rescues" the mother, it helps restore the beliefs the family originally had, and they continue on as they were. A slightly dysfunctional, if not loving family. However, the father, who in the film admits he is inherently dishonest, admits to his son he is a smoker in the last lines of the film. Some can view this as a negative influence as he is smoking, but others (like myself) can see that that the father is no longer lying. Now because of this, he can work to become the person he wants to be, as he has accepted the person that he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)