The Fall of Metropolis

Metropolis was a silent film. I didn’t expect there to be any dialogue, however I must say I expected alot of music and sounds, but did not here many. I like having dialogue and words, but this film pretty much was self-explanatory. Its closeups and visual screenshots on certain things and on the city helped to tell the story. This particular film is categorized as a German expressionist film. It broadcasted the mind of an individual about how he sees the world via his perspective or outlook on the industrial world. It tends to both celebrate the development of a city, but at the same time shun the workers and builders of the city. In so little words and so many pictures, it displays the kinda sociological view of the haves versus the have-nots and man versus machine point-of-view.  There are the capitalists(the haves) who have everything and are working the the laborers (have-nots) below them. The producer and writer of this film seems to show a fear of machines taking over and to warn against technology. I couldn’t help but to think about the movie I, Robot where Will Smith is like the only person who sees the robots and advancement of technology as a bad thing. In the scene on Metropolis where the big machine eats all of the workers, I couldn’t help but think of how the machine or rather the computer on I, Robot was controlling things and killing people. In both films, the machines were taken over the workers or the makers. They both seem to fear developing technology like many films of the past that warn against advanced technology because they believe it is grown too much and gotten a bit out of hand. It is like a call for people to pay attention like a prophecy for future years or something. Anyway over all a great silent film that was somewhat comedic to me at times.

Chapelin A Communist?

The president exiled Chapelin as quick as he possibly could. Was it because he showed different ideas and different thoughts about how he felt about the government or was he really a communist? I mean he started out dressing like Hitler, but making fun of Hitler in a way with crazy actions and characterized him as a joke. Later he began to make fun of America and the immigrant policy and things like that. He made jokes of very serious activities and events. Many people liked him and his work, but as usual when it comes to film and books some people did not like his work. I am surprised he wasn’t truly banned completely from film work because like certain films we have talked about some have been banned from theaters or the public view because of their content. Do you think that just because Chapelin expressed his own ideas about countries he should have been exiled or banned? Do you think Chapelin was a traitor of his country or America because of his display?

Chapelin – Dramatic Change

Chapelin has gotten a bit full of himself by the second half of this autobiography. I mean he is a genius of comedy but everybody should have their limits and as his brother said “Take what you can get”. Instead Charlie in his pride tended to walk over the lesser people who had helped to make him who he was even those that gave him his big break. He ruled out the feelings of his own brother even and perhaps that could be either a good thing or end in a bad way. While many people were moving to words and sounds, Chapelin chose no words no dialogue just to stick to sounds and actions as indications and symbols which of course is another thing that made him a great producer. He was able to make a connection between sounds and the message he wanted to get across such as the one scene where he mentioned a blind woman and how she can tell a poor man from a rich man through the sound of a rich man’s car door. Brillant idea I would have never thought of anything like that. Although Chapelin’s ideas tended to be great and new, they also stopped being as funny as they once were. Was it possibly because he lost his touch? Was it because he lost the love of his life his inspiration? Was it because he just ran out of extremely funny ideas? Or was it simply because he was now trying TOO hard to bring the funny?

Chapelin Film

The tribute to Chapelin video was very funny and entertaining and somewhat realistic. I liked how they showed him growing up with his brother and mom. The film showed several instances of his past how it began or how he got started and advanced and learned and grew and how he pretty much created a name for himself with the help and support of others. His drunken acting is the best I have seen. It was very entertaining and I can see why that would catch the audience attention. It somehow portrays our actions in real life situations such as watching an intoxicated person act a fool. I know there have been plenty of times where I have laughed at my drunken friends fall off of chairs or slur their words.

Chapelin took what he watched and learned and formed a character, an unspoken comedian using whatever material he could find. He created his own character physically aside from himself as representing the funny. He was seen first acting as an old man full grown beard and facial hair. After that he shaved it off and then he portrayed what I like to refer to as a Hitler type character with the small tiny moustache, funny walk, and cane. It was more of a funny less serious side though. He more of a comedic artist creating scenes as he went like one of the first ones we saw of him was a wedding scene where they were filming and the other actors were told to go with it. While Chapelin did his own thing creating trouble the director was behind the camera telling the others what to do and how to follow his lead. Overall Chapelin from what I have seen so far appears to have been a comedic genius. The grown actor who played his part wasn’t so bad either, very intriguing. He had a funny face didn’t seem to smile much looked somewhat serious, but was still a goof which is really what made it catch my attention and the attention of others as well so far. I’m looking forward to watching more.

Birth of a Nation N Birth at Elderbush Glutch

Both “The Birth at Elderbush Glutch” and the “Birth of a Nation” are displays of the western genre on film. The Birth at Elderbush Glutch shows a piece of film for a while then displays some words. To me it seemed somewhat random such as the ”my baby” phrase that showed up from time to time. So how did they decide which words to actually display on screen? Why did they chose the words they chose? Did they think that the rest of the actions were pretty much self-explanatory?

Unlike the format in “Birth at Elderbush Glutch, D. Griffith maker of “Birth of a Nation” made more sense in his editing and word choice. He tended to put small story portions in between scenes which was understandable because they helped tell the story and really prepare the audience for the scenes to come. From time to time there was a line of dialogue or words of actors flashing up on the screen in the scenes also but they were relevant and important words. Both incorporated difficult complex techniques in their films that was not really seen in others in the past. They also displayed strong touching imagery.

Porter’s New Concepts

Melies did not edit his films, however Edwin Porter did. He incorporated pictures on top of pictures where you could see images but see more images lightly in the background. His films did not have smooth transition all the time either. Sometimes when the pictures changed one can still see the previous picture for a minute with the new picture. It reminded me very much of slide effects on the Microsoft PowerPoint program. Porter also managed to add in alot of color especially on the womens’ outfits which other producers of films did not. We began to see yellow and purple. That had to take a long time because he had to color on every film piece by tinting. It also seems like it was hard to keep the color on the particular object. I noticed sometimes the color bounced around or that when the color objects got close to the sides of the film strip the color disappeared. That was kind of strange to me that is why it caught my attention. Porter also captured early stock animation on film. In the film “Dream of A Rarebit Fiend”, the objects floated and jumped around and appeared and disappeared. That was very interesting and showed me why he was so known for his work and talent.

Lumiere Films Tell Stories

Lumiere so far seems to have the smoothest films because his films are not jumpy and are not edited therefore it does not look like the film was cut or broken within the movie. You get to watch the film straight through without having to adjust your eyes or try to get back to the story at hand. His films tell stories like “Leaving the Factory” which displayed actual people leaving the workplace the factory just walking. Today that might seem a lilttle interesting but overall altogether boring something we would probably not want to look at twice, but for them it was something new it was life caught on film so it was interesting. Most of these films shown were only a few seconds long, but they showed enough to tell what was going on and what the situation was at the moment. It also kind of zoomed in more on the people instead of the landscape or surroundings. He only showed enough background to show where they were coming from and what they were doing not so much of  their landscape. He definitely did not show any important buildings or statues or anything nearby. Maybe he possibly never shot films by nearby outdoor significant buildings or maybe he just chose not to show them. Who knows?! Whereas later Edwin Porter began to show outdoor scenes and we watched as other cameramen captured location mostly on film showing important rivers or capes and boats and buildings of importance, but we did not particularly see that in Lumiere films on Friday in class. I wonder why. I talked about Edison alot last time because I was film illiterate and did not know the good from the bad, however after watching these films by Lumiere, Thomas Edison has nothing on Lumiere. No real action, no story, and no point.

Set Vs Setting

Today we talked about a set which is to my knowledge a place where a movie or film is shot.  A set is a particular formed or built area. It can be a realistic area or just where some of the action takes place. It could be a realistic setting where it is a natural habitat or a building or area that was already there. Basically a setting is where things take place the physical area. Which one is more important if either: the set or the setting? Or in other words which one matters the most and has the most affect on people? Does it matter? Can the setting be any city and any state in any building as long as the set is right?

Plot N Story

A story as explained in class is a series of events, but a plot is a conflict and also a series of events arranged in a certain way. However we failed to point out that a plot in not the story itself and not all stories have plots. The plot or plots are foundation for most stories. Sometimes the plot can start the whole story and then characters and other things can form from that one plot. A good story is based on a character that makes a choice in the plot or conflict which can then lead to another plot point which makes the character or characters have to make a change or make another decision. A good writer or film writer must have a good story and plot in order for the movie to form a strong reaction on the audience. One thing leading to another or one change or choice leading to something else for the audience is how a great story is formed. According to something I found online (forgot which site), there are only 4 “simple plots”: 1. Man versus man. 2. Man versus nature. 3. Man versus self. 4. Man versus man’s work. Which to me posed a question for me: In every movie, film, book, or story can you always point out one of those plots? Sometimes stories are written for a reason. Sometimes plots or stories are meant to make the audience think and wonder what the author is trying to say or get across to them and sometimes the audience is left to wonder why the author made the movie or film made or chose to write a particular story. Do we always look for a lesson, theme, or conflict in a movie, film, book, story, etc?

A New Outlook On Movies

In class we talked about how people react to movies and how certain movies cause problems. I believe that when any interpretation of things going on in the world is different from the norms of our society, it causes problems and conflict. This is the reason why movies, films, and books are often banned or thrown out. They want everyone to be on one accord thinking alike and that is just not how the world is. Besides people get tired of looking at the same stories and same ideas on screen over and over again. Some things are and should be made for confrontation. The different outlooks on society displayed in movies, books, films, and even art and music become interesting because they stir up problems and make you think differently than you once might have thought about an issue.

Instead of banning some things, instead they censor them in a certain fashion so that only a certain group of people or age group will be able to access viewing of these ideas on screen. But what about the people who determine what and how things should be censored? Why do they censor them based on what they think and who are they to say something should be rated R versus PG-13?! I find that some things that should be censored for adult content and violence are not censored properly and movies such as one of my favorites “Hav Plenty” is censored as an adult movie for a few curse words, no sexual contented scenes other than a kiss, and one fight. But why?!

Does all of this happen because society is egotistical? They are all about what they like and what they want and what others should see or not see. We are a Me Me Me society. Everything is surrounded around us individually and essentially for the most part. Whatever we want we get so whatever owners of theaters decide is good to them they show in their theaters, but what about the people? How do they know what WE want collectively? Every movie is NOT going to sell tickets like they think. Everybody is not going to think the same about everything.