The Infinite Insight in Film

Perks of Being a Wallflower is a movie I have seen probably eight or nine times; alongside reading the book at least twice. I obsessed over the book and movie during -the main character of the stories age, Charlie- freshman year of high school. This is a classic coming of age story, I I was… coming of age and this story resonated with me a lot. Stephen Chbosky wrote the screenplay and the book; he captured the coming of age genre story through narrative, sound, and genre. The soundtrack is recognizable throughout multiple generations, and therefore resonates with a wide audience; because it just sounds young.

Chbosky with Sam and Charlie on set of Perks

In Perks Of Being a Wallflower, the plot is based around one of the main character’s Charlie; he narrates the story through his letters to his “friend”. These letters are helping him deal with two major traumas in his life, the two traumas are evidently the underlying in the story the entire time. Through the narration of the letters the viewers are able able to develop a linear story in the movie, the line of events that happened chronologically: beginning to end. Chbosky drives the plot around the first year of Charlies high school experience, taking the viewer back and forth between present and past.

just one of the most reblogged 2012 Tumblr post EVER, lol.

Since Ive seen the movie so many times, I decided to read up on the nuances behind the movie a bit. I was able to grasp the ambiguous time period Chbosky tries to capture; I later found out that it was shot on film, which is unusual for 2012. This totally amplified the essence of a 1990 coming of age storyline.

At the beginning of the semester Dr. Schlegel told the class that Perks was one of the movies we *might* watch towards the end of the semester. I was shocked, considering this was a high school love of mine I didn’t eve think it was “sophisticated” enough to talk about in a film studies class. Class discussion this week was fun, in that I I was able to hear about something I was already really passionate about.

snapshot of: Charlie’s dissociative realization of being in the land of inclusive misfits

This being my last blog, and we had our last class zoom call this week, I can’t help but touch on the previous part of this semester. Let me start with the fact that Into to Film made me have a completely new appreciation and fascination with war movies, and horror movies for that matter. The screenings typically lined up with that weeks topic on film making; this made it easier to connect the lessons to everyday movie watching. The way the class was laid out was extremely intuitive and made lectures and discussions just seem like a fun talk. It was hard to find the motivation to write my blogs at first, but I honestly liked reading other peoples and writing my own (once I started…) especially since the class was online all semester. My least favorite screening was probably: The Artist, because I just didn’t find the story all that captivating. NOT to diminish the reason it was included in the syllabus, because I understand that, just not my cup of tea.

Thank you Dr. S for opening my insight about the nuances behind American Film, I am now officially obsessed. I am looking forward to History of the Motion Picture next semester, bummed its online again, but after this class online, I believe it will still be a ball. Thanks again for there great feedback on my essay, makes me feel proud of my writing. Happy Holidays! Watch Movies for fun! Thanks Dr.S!

Mia’s third blog: ownership and the digital revolution

At this point into the semester, with Tallula being my roommate and all, I have heard an abundance about these two documentaries. I am glad I finally had the chance to watch them because as usual, this week’s screenings have opened new doors for me in terms of films I would like to watch. I have gained a new appreciation for different types of filmography; and that I will most definitely be watching the entire Star Wars series over winter break.

The two documentaries we watched: Industrial Light and Magic: Creating the Impossible, and Side by Side; were both helpful in understanding the nuances that are imbedded in filmography and CGI. The whole time watching these films I was just so impressed with the extremely fast advancements in technology.

The Industrial Light and Magic Documentary allowed movie watchers to understand how revolutionary George Lucas’s visual effects were to films after 1975. He created “magic tricks” on set to deceive viewers, these processes were hands-on and time-consuming tasks; but over time computer generated images (CGI) became essential for filmmakers. George Lucas’s first cgi effects were done in analog. . . on film. . . so considering film was *basically* trashed as a cinematic medium about twenty years later, ILM had a pretty tough transition when they had to conform to the “Digital Revolution.” ILM had to transition from a completely tactical way of editing films to a mostly a computer-generated CGI program. There is obviously still immense appreciation for the work that goes into generating analog magic tricks on screen, but after Star Wars was released filmmakers realized CGI was essential to fully articulate their artistic vision in movies.

CGI turned this ^^^ into this  vvvv

So aside from the effects that the Digital Revolution had on filmmakers, it also had an impact on how actors approached cinema. Some felt pressured during the transition to keep making, making, making, rolling, rolling, rolling; and others felt compelled by the idea of having a more intuitive and speedy way of filming. Analog cameras were much slower and more precise process.; directors couldn’t speak while they were rolling, the actors heard the film whirring, the filmmaking team had to wait until the next to even see what they shot. As the lovely Keanu Reeves describes in Side by Side, digital cinema was a heck of a change when it came to how a set functioned. Once cameras had hard-drives, the scenes shot could be viewed immediately or even in real-time. AND at the same time the directors could instruct actors on set and use non-diagetic sound in after effects.

The takeover of digital cinema, led to blockbusters, which evidently led to the dilemma of ownership in film. Once people could start renting movies, and bringing them home on a VHS or CD, a monopoly began. Once Netflix popped up in 1997, it was just an ownership war. Watching films and shows on your computer became popular once Netflix started a streaming option on their subscription. This opened the doors for other companies to make viewers pay for subscriptions to a site that had movies that Netflix didn’t have on their site.

Auteur Theory and Stanley Kubrick’s Powerful Signature on Film

• 

• 

The easiest way I started to understand Auteur Theory was when I compared it to authors writing novels. Just as an author has nearly all the reigns when it comes to writing a novel, the director of a film has a similar power. But when it comes to making movies there are more hands on deck. To be proclaimed an “auteur director” means that when watching a film made by said director, the viewers would know based on the film’s personality. Film critics use Auteur Theory as a way to analyze a director’s stylistic approaches, and whilst analyzing Stanley Kubrick’s filmmaking career he developed an approach to film that was unlike any other director at the time. I did (and have done) a lot of research about Kubrick’s life prior to filmmaking; so it’s fun when I learn about his auteurism and relate it to his earlier life. It makes sense that Kubrick makes the methodical and aesthetically pleasing films that he does, considering the fact that Stan was an avid chess player and photographer before making films.

He was an extremely thought-provoking director; everything shown or mentioned in his films was put intentionally. Kubrick uses simple ideas in his films, but often uses a “radical approach to movies by adding substance and choosing quantity over quality.”¹ He has a remarkable eye; he simply has an aesthetic that “entices and unsettles”³ an audience. When further researched I realized he used a number of techniques that really nailed him down as being an auteur. When looking at Stanley Kubrick’s movie history he is collaboratively approaching his adaptations of novels with a large team, compared to the one author that wrote the novel. Since Kubrick isn’t a genre director per say, his films have more “constantly tried to push boundaries, look for new concepts and explore possibilities.”³ It’s definitely noteworthy to state that all but two of Kubricks films were adaptations from books; he turns writings into his own works of art. Kubrick had a remarkable talent for uniquely approaching cinema. I find that his way of adapting the nuances of the novels was very existential. Many of his films leave the audience fearful, confused, and questioning reality.

A great video analyzing the use of Stanley Kubricks approach of using color in his films.

As viewers, when we decipher Kubrick’s films, we can come to terms with the fact that he has a consistent use of visual design elements, such as Mise-en-scene and cinematography. Take The Shining for example: Kubrick’s use of Mise-en-scene in that film was out of control. There is Mise-en-scene in terms of location, narrative, lighting, objects, and color. His use of color was extremely telling in that movie, and the cinematography as well. Not to mention The Shinning was one of the first films to ever use a stedicam; let’s just say directors lost a lot less sleep after that. The Stedicam became important for Kubrick in later films because he was able to use his hands on interaction with the camera without the issue of having a really shaky shot. Kubrick even once stated that the he uses the stedicam “as it was intended to be used, as a tool which can help get the lens where it’s wanted in space and time without the classical limitation of the dolly and crane.”⁴

Below I inserted some images of Stanley’s early photo work. It is unavoidable to compare his photography to his filmography.

I delved into some of his photography work, from before he specifically made films and I was pleased to see the similarities between his photos and films. His love for symmetry and contrast are very apparent in both practices. From personal experience I know that by studying photography they engrave the concept of framing a photo into you. . . until it’s just second nature. Every single one of Kubrick’s shots could be paused to make a beautiful photograph, and I find that pleasing as all hell.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Kubricks use of cinematography was remarkable in film history; he breached the use of cinematic space in many films. Such as his use of zoom-in effects to distort the viewer’s perception of reality. The depth that he creates is referred to in a writing as the “panoptic gaze,”⁴ describing his use of wide angle, symmetrical, and all-showing shots. The panoptic gaze that Kubrick does so often can be described as so: “it maintain[s] the subject of its observation in a perfectly-framed shot, it can anticipate the movement of characters. This spatial ‘awareness’ marks a significant development on previous camera movements, which are conventionally used to support the story through a character’s point-of- view.”⁴

Kubrick is easily one of the most influential directors in cinematic history. Contemporary directors strive to approach a film the way Kubrick had, they long for his understanding of film. His voice and vision as a filmmaker was apparent after his very first film. He then boiled down his language over the years into a compressive body of films that put him on the map as an “avant guarde auteur director.” I could have spoken for hours, and done buckets of more research merely for my own personal satisfaction, but I highlighted what I found his films are most notable for. Obviously my research isn’t done here, and I will be continuing this research: as it sneezes to amaze me every time I engange. I definitely could have popped off on his use of Mise-en-scene, soundtrack, symbolism, and narration too–but I didn’t…. for Dr. Schelgels and my own sake. Kubrick is not your typical auteur director, oh no, he revolutionized the idea of an auteur director.

1. https://medium.com/@chandlerbado/kubrick-an-avante-garde-approach-to-the-auteur-theory-ec1d8bc6edf9
2. https://sites.lafayette.edu/fams202-sp15/2015/02/20/kubrick-auteur/
3. https://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1624&context=essa
4. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229392806.pdf

Representation in Film, with a special eye on Glory.

Glory was one of the first Academy Award winning film to represent history accurately. Especially when the film was capturing an important time American History, when free African Americans were able to fight for the first regiment in the Civil War. It would have been a shame if it was represented inaccurately, though it was shown through the first person view of the white Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. The film was painstaking, heartwarming, and chilling; and that wouldn’t have been capable without the eye contact from the soldiers.

Below are some great shots of the actors who’s played the African American soldiers, in the film. These stills emphasize the emotions shown in the film, and the actors incredible use of connection with the camera. Denzel Washington even won an Academy Award for best supporting actor in 1990, this movie 100 perecent put Washington on the grid as an actor. I was surprised too find that Glory didn’t win an Oscar for Best Picture in 1990, I mean I know Driving Miss Daisy was good and all BUT GLORY.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Soooo, our reading states:

“Film shows history as a process, the world on the screen brings together things that, for analytical purposes, written in history often splits apart. Economics, politics, race, and gender come together in the lives of individuals and groups. This makes history like life itself, a process of changing relationships where political and social questions are interwoven. Robert Gould Shaw is at once a White man, a son, a resident of Massachusetts, an idealist, an abolitionist, a Harvard graduate, a colonel, a leader of a black regiment, a Northerner, and an American.” The story seems relatable, and confident in its storytelling.

In general, films are always heavily mediated. Almost everything you see in films is very much intentional, from the lighting to the framing to the writing to the cropping. The creator of the film; whether it be the screenwriter or the director or anyone else that plays a large role in the outcome of the movie—selects everything that you see very specifically. They decide what to put in the film, and what to leave out. Everything you see has been selected. Because of this, the representation of nearly everything we see in film is skewed, in one way or another. Additionally, filmmakers like to add some “spice” to their films for dramatic effect so even when a film is basically historically accurate, it most probably has some small elements that aren’t 100% accurate or representative of the truth. Inaccurate tellings in film may typically pertain to the mere fact that it’s Hollywood.

Im grateful Schlegel showed us this film, because before this class I had never sought to watch war films, but now I foresee myself doing so. He completely changed my view on war movies, and Glory accuracy made it even more enjoyable. I gained a new appreciation for America, if I am being completely honest, the struggle and fight for pride was beautiful. The cinematography, score, cast, and acting was incredible, the film was incredible. I couldn’t take my eyes away.

GET OUT & IDEOLOGY

So at this point I’ve seen Get Out at least 5 times, my most recent this week for class, obviously. The beginning of Get Out the viewer wouldn’t really suspect it being a horror film, its just slightly…chilling. This movie isn’t your typical horror film, the film carries classic horror tropes, but why is it considered horror? They do fear for their lives but it’s more psychological, more thriller for me. It’s just so real for me, it makes it hard to relate it to horror, horror seems fake. Fake like Saw gore, or Paranormal Activities representation of ghosts. Though the constant glare, of red glassy terrified eyes, is haunting.We as a society are normalized when it comes to racism and this event is just far too feasible. Michael Abels score also makes this movie chilling, also considering the music is contemporary, such s Childish Gambino… its way too close to home for me. It was reassuring to hear Peele mention how he changed things up from his original script, to make it even more realistic.

Jordan Peele lookin like Stanley Kubrick ❤️

Jordan Peele was extremely methodical when considering this as a horror film and the way he speaks upon race is painstaking. Simply put the man is a genius, and after listening to the audio commentary Peeles passion for the movie shines through. This movie is just layered and layered with historical connections, mise en scène or motifs, tropes, suppressed values and practices in America, and ties back to other classic horror films. Each time I have watched the film I’ve realized more and more, but it wasn’t really until Schlegel spoke about it in class, and I listened to the audio commentary. The attitudes and delivery of the characters script first changes, their delivery becomes more devious with each watch. I was thrilled to see Jordan Peeles’ fascination with other horror movies, such as the Shinning, Frankentstien, and the Matrix. I like Dr. Schelgels way of describing this movie as being a bricolage, it is just a terrifically made combination of ideologies.

It’s apparent that Americans have strong beliefs about how a citizen is individually viable for their own success. White Americans that are ignorant and arrogant about the systematic racism that’s embedded in America, often convincing themselves that is why the BIPOC community isn’t as sucessful. White Americans find it easy to brush off their immoral racist values, and deem them socially acceptable. This principle is blatantly exposed in Get Out. When Dr. S explained the three types of ideology, it was apparent that Peele was speaking to Americas attitude upon racism on all three types of ideologies. Roses’ family in Get Out is completely aware of the fact that slaveholding is no longer widely acceptable, ie residual ideologies. The family is aware of their wrongdoing.

Dean trying to make Chris feel comfortable, emphasizing the idea of them not being racist as fuck.

I was really excited about Jordan Peeles use of mise en scène; the lion, the constant use of red and blue, the milk and fruit loops, and his referencing to the Knight Templar. I will need to read more about the Knights of Templar because Peele seemed very swayed by that. I was in awh while listening to the audio commentary, and during our class discussion. I think I was so excited and awed, because of the genius embedded in the movie, and how exciting it was to tie this movie back to other units this semester. Thanks Dr. S for the amazing week, as usual, and sorry this is only my first blog, I regret not writing one for week two and week six, those movies are now some new faves of mine.