Exploration in Film's Reality

Certainly for some it is hard when change comes. That is especially when that change brings in more reality to the picture. Taken literally, the picture, meaning movies, were changed dramatically during the turn of the century. Many of the people who had been in the film industry for almost always were either skeptical or outraged by any drastic changes in their beloved art work. But just as the art of film changed, so did music, books and even art itself. This introduced the oppositional forces that pushed our culture into a whole different light: realism vs. fantasy.

First, let us define realism and fantasy. Realism is a “practical understanding of life.”1 Fantasy is said to be a “mental image or dream” and an “impractical idea.”1 When one puts that into context with culture, there are some interesting points to bring up. What I am focusing on is film though, and it exemplifies our culture’s changes and history really well. In the beginning of film, modesty and innocence took on a big role at the movies. The times were not like Meet Me in St. Louis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSKvNcC6eo8 or The Philadelphia Story, http://www.spike.com/video/philadelphia-story/2672357 Though the audience might have known that, it wasn’t important to them. Movies were a distraction from hard times and almost always gave a happy ending that left the audience gaily satisfied. These stories kept being told, and soon enough, a new generation saw that they needed to make changes. This generation was mainly the baby boomers. Though they were not the only ones involved, there was a movement in the culture that could not be stopped. That was the change from fantasy to reality. They attempted to move beyond the films that told a sappy heartfelt story and show that life is not really like that. Ethan Mordden said, “In the 1960s however, writers, actors, and directors suddenly retire the traditional character models. They begin to observe rather that idealize the world. To put it roughly, for the first in fifty years the movies are about romance. Nothing happens in the 1950s. Then, from 1960 on, the movies are about reality.”1 These changes brought up and addressed a lot of social issues that showed resistance to assimilation and incorporation. Because these changes involved major rule breaking and lifting the rug from underneath some of the oldest film makers during that time and even the public, it was a hard and slow process. With a lot of ridicule and criticism, and also a lot of support, they were allowed to reveal the truth. Movies unveiled reality to society and took them for a ride they already knew. That ride, though less innocent, became a hit. If only it had become popular in the beginning, then the embarrassment, such as The Time of The Louisville Flood (Margaret Bourke-White, 1937), wouldn't be so shameful. 

New great movies that have explored the truth since this turnaround: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2963931417/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tCxRO67gyk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf0VqzuWedU

1 http://dictionary.reference.com/

2 http://teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/hsty3080/3rdYr3080/3080site/movies%2060's

Post-Classical and College

Hollywood is always bound for change. For better or for worse, movies will always evolve. The evolution, to me, is beautiful. Categories of film are created but originate or are influenced by previous film making styles. What is made today in movies emulates much of what we know as post-classical cinema. Post classical film making began in the 1960’s. What they also called it was New Hollywood. So many changes came about, mainly due to the new generation of what were the baby boomers. This generation was so profoundly different from their parents. Most of their parents, living after the war, had created an environment for their offspring that was very privileged. One of the great privileges was college. College helped Hollywood in many ways. Around World War II, when box offices were slow and no one had the money or interest in seeing a picture show, Hollywood suffered. When it started to pick up again, it was because college and it’s educated viewers and their cash. They had the money and they also came as critics, seeing the art and meaning in the films. The other great way was creativity. Much of the youth was restless, rebellious and awaiting something new and exciting. The ones who went to college and created films learned how to apply that and make it real. Many changes were made in films because of this feature. They introduced subject matter and styles that brought realism into cinema. Instead of the traditional movie, where it was all shot in a studio and was given a screenplay of a fantasy or a fairytale, the New Hollywood took the other route. They began making films that were shot in real locations, where people live and, of course, relate to. Dialogue and scenes became more realistic as well. Breaking of rules took place and violence and sex became a part of movies. Many critics didn’t take well to it. When Bonnie and Clyde came out, the critics were divided. With so much material that questioned morals; thieves, criminals, sex, and lots of violence, many enjoyed it anyway. Many did not though, “It may have shocked audiences, but it brought them to the box office in record numbers. Bonnie and Clyde also stirred up a battle among movie critics that seemed to be almost as violent as the film itself. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times was so offended by it that he reviewed it — negatively — three times.” [1] What can be said about this review though, is that Bosley Crowther was born in 1905. I’m sure he just didn’t want to accept the New Hollywood. I think this is exactly what the new generation hope to achieve; to shake the old ways and create a fearlessness of reality on screen.

Sources-
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,844256-7,00.html#ixzz15Ndnco8o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosley_Crowther

Comparing Humor and Humour

Choose a modern American film that is a remake of a foreign film. What changes were necessary in the plot, characters or structure to modify the film for an American audience? What does that tell us about different expectations or ideas about films, film making or film audiences in different cultures?
American films can be ones of excellence. But those are not dubbed American; they are recognized for their director, writer, and actors. When they are named American, they are usually of some bad quality, pertaining to the structure of the film and what their audience enjoys being fed. These movies, also the most popular films in the U.S. that made it (too) well in the box office, are made for a large crowd in America. This majority, apparently, all agree the best movies are the ones with violent action, dramatic disaster, or are visually funny with lots of wisecracks. What makes a clear comparison to these statements is the 2010 movie, Death at a Funeral, which was a remake of the 2007 British film, Death at a Funeral. It is a perfect example of a great foreign film, turned into a distasteful one to satisfy an American Culture.
Death at a Funeral is a story of a family who has lost a loved one. It is focused mainly on the first son, Daniel, who is grieving for his father, and has to take on some responsibilities of the funeral that has lost a little control and normality. These kinds of scenarios are created everywhere; by the cousin who accidentally gave her fiancé hallucinogens from her brother’s apartment. Another crazy scenario is the Daniel is blackmailed by a midget showing proof he had sexual relations with the Daniel’s father. What follow these two events are scenes like the fiancé naked on the roof, the blackmailer being given hallucinogens as well, and the coffin being knocked over.
In the 2010 Death at a Funeral, the scenes were almost exactly the same as the original. It was literally retold scene-by-scene. What made the drastic change in the structure though, was the Americanization of every scene. In the 2007 Death at a Funeral, the direct, Frank Oz, made the scenes were very realistic, especially in the way the actors were given time to react. Their lines didn’t seem staged, but honest and natural. In the 2010 Death, every scene was sped up and louder. The scenes were so much chattier and did not give enough for the actors to really take in the situation and act naturally. This made it seem fake and genuine emotions had been replaced by wisecracks. This transformation made the movie seem surreal.
The change in the characters was just as dramatic. In the original Death at a Funeral, the characters as well were more real. They were serious, grieving, quiet, and a little sarcastic. They played out their roles well and reacted well to odd situations, again, making it seem more real. The Americanization of this in the 2010 movie was much more crass and “in your face” humor. The director, Neil Labute, never took time to focus on the complex character motivations and dumbed it down to give the audience big, flashing signposts to tell them how to feel. A lot of American audiences want this; they want simple and loud. But because of this it becomes too staged, not relatable, and immature. For instance, there was a dramatic scene in the two movies near the end. The 2007 film use human emotions to drive the characters. In the 2010 film, this wasn’t good enough; they had to throw in a gun to push the characters to react. This insinuates the American audience watching the film is not smart enough or does not have the patience to read and understand the feelings that motivate the characters. The expectations of a movie are dramatically and disappointingly very different between these two cultures. Again, it is not everyone in America who has bad taste in art, but only some.

Women and Film

How did the portrayal of women change in American films between silent films and “the talkies?” Why do you think that change occurred?

I think the explanation could be explained very simply; when the “Talkies” began, women were given a voice. Of course, all the actors were, but women in films moved beyond that role of damsel in distress to someone with an opinion, a voice, equalizing the importance of the characters.
Like in “The General,” the female character was the catalyst for Buster Keaton’s character. She causes this young man to fight for her respect and her heart, holding importance in all his decisions. Though this is very important, the woman’s character is still nothing but a statue, portraying beauty and desire. She does nothing but this, loving and supporting the men in her life.
This reflects what women were thought of at the time. In the early 1900’s women’s rights were just starting to be fought for. Society still thought of women as second, below men. They were expected to stay at home, support and take care of their men and raise their children. They had no voice in political affairs and were not allowed to do a man’s job, (the pay and status was always higher.)
Once film had sound, all actors were given lines, allowing everyone something important to say. Sound, and over improvements in film allowed growth in all aspects of a movie. Women were eventually given heroic roles and great lines. Actresses such as Mea West and Bette Davis were given great opportunities to portray woman as strong, witty beings. Film, (mainly with sound,) was a great help during the time of the end of women’s inhibition. It was an aid to women because they were a part of an art that told stories, ones that kept surprising and exciting the audience. I’m sure that excitement, eventually, was held because of a role where the woman stood as undeniable greatness and strength.

Other than the lack of sound;

Silent films stand alone. They were there in and as the beginning of the world of cinema. They were there as the primitive, romantic start of film. They stand alone, with historical value, sophistication and as the icon of classic movies.

When silent films were still being made, it was the time of exploration, great practice and new innovations. This great effort and enthusiasm determined the making and viewing of film. This was the time acting, narrative, and editing were still evolving. They were discovering new uses, techniques, and skill to portray a person or tell a story through a lens. This is where it lead to being more than capturing movement. This is where it because an art form.

Acting in the silent era of films required many gestures, large and dramatic, so the audience could understand the actor without speech. Without sound, editing the film showed great importance. With the development of analytical acting and increasing the use of medium and close shots in the transitional period, acting became more natural and realistic.

Special effects and backgrounds in films during this time were very creative. They were mainly produced in studios, so having to do without real scenery, mirrors, paint, lighting and many other things helped create an illusion on screen.

In the absence of sound on screen, there would be orchestras and sound effects. Eventually, these were eliminated and the editors tried to concentrate on visual effects to make up for it.

Narrative played a large role in silent films as well. Screen shots of words helped the story unfold. Most of the time, the narrative was shown when it was impossible to understand the story with just the scenery and the actor’s movements. I think though, they tried to make it as minimal as they could.

Many of these elements are still in film today. What was created to make a film better during the silent era, was more primitive, though, and less technically advanced. Such as film editing; cameras and camcorders have changed so much, but the basic idea of how it is used it still the same. They are a lot easier to use now.

With sound though, film has become much more reliant on dialogue. Also sound effects are used much more now for dramatization. This is why I think silent films stand alone. I feel like we have lost that innocence of being able to enjoy a movie without being blown away by a harsh gun shot or rocket ship taking off. A lot of the film industries today concentrate on the “wow” factor make sure the audience is being fed everything in the movie. Before, movies were less realistic, but they were pleasant, and without the technology used now, you had to actually pay attention to the movie. You had to think about it. (It is kind of like watching a foreign film without subtitles.) But don’t get me wrong, I know there are movies still like that today. It is a shame, though, that they aren’t that common, especially in the box office.

I think the films made today that still portray artistic values and make you think after watching it are the ones I could see being silent films. Though it would be incredibly and wonderfully challenging.