Looking Back

I'm not going to beat around the bush: this semester was not as well organized as the last semester (FilmP 150). Blog announcements were sporadic and sometimes non-existent so that throughout most of the semester I had no idea when they were due. The Final Cut project was a prime example of how messy things were this semester. Having to film the project in one hour was a problem I was able to get over quickly because I understood it wasn't a huge production we were working on. But then editing the piece was simply disastrous. I lost the audio on my piece during the transfer, then kept running out of memory while I was working on the piece. By the end of it all I was greatly disappointed with the fact that we had to work on computers which were not well equipped for the the assigned project.

The Flash portion of the class was not much better. The lectures on Flash were convoluted and difficult to understand. By the time I sat down to work on the Flash project I really had no idea where to begin. I had to mess around with Flash on my own while watching online tutorials to finally figure things out. The lectures were not able to successfully prepare me for the project but I got through it anyways. As a film major, I was bothered with the fact that I was spending a large amount of time learning Flash because its something I'll probably never work with again. Having this class be a two semester long course seems pointless to me because it is a very basic course and there were things that as a film major I had no interest in learning (such as Flash). There should be a single semester long introductory course for film majors and a separate one for media majors. An introductory course should not be two semesters long.

With all that said, not everything I have to say about the class is negative. Incorporating the Natalia Almada presentation into the semester was a nice departure from the usual lectures. I also liked that the midterm was a creative pre-production project instead of the usual in class exam. Although the blogs were not dealt with as well as in the last semester, I like how they are incorporated into the course work because it gives students a chance to freely explore relevant course material. Ultimately I think there are some things that worked well throughout the semester, but there is plenty of room for improvement for future semesters.

Speaking With Animation - "Papiroflexia"

I came across this animation while browsing through youtube. It was labeled "Orgami World", although the title that appears in the actual animation is "Papiroflexia." The animation was done by Joaquin Baldwin. I chose this animation as the subject of my post because it was both well animated and creatively engaging.

As both a film and creative writing major, one of the things I scrutinize in any piece is story. The story in this animation is simple, creative and effective. The short narrative basically follows a man who is able to transform the world around him into origami. As we follow the man, we see him transform the urban landscape around him into a beautiful natural state. At the end of the piece, the man transforms himself into an origami bear, completing the transformation from crowded city into serene nature. It's a very creative, yet straightforward story; which is what ultimately makes it so effective. The simplicity of the story does not mean that it lacks depth. On the contrary I think that the simplicity of the actual narrative emphasizes the thematic depth of the animation. The two most compelling themes which caught my attention were that of city versus nature (or chaotic order versus serene wilderness) and the ability of the individual to make a difference. The piece is very imaginative and inspires an equally creative response from the viewer.

The animation also works if it is considered from a more technical standpoint. One of the things that stuck out to me most was the use of sound in the piece. The harmonious soundtrack is juxtaposed with the harsh city noises to further develop the theme of city (or civilization) versus nature. Another juxtaposition I noticed in the piece involved the use of colors. The main character himself sticks out in the dull and dark colored urban landscape because of his bright color. As he changes things from their urban state into a natural state, they become brighter in terms of color. For example, when he changes the car into a deer it goes from being a dark gray color to a brighter brown. The dull gray airplane is transformed into a more vivid blue bird. In the scene with the quick transformation of the buildings and roads into trees and paths, the sun comes out and illuminates the entire landscape, casting it in a bright array of colors which highly contrast the stark colors of the urban landscape which has now been fully transformed. The use of such juxtaposition further develops the thematic opposition of city and nature.

Since the environment in the piece is essential to the animation it is important that the landscape be represented in an effective way. In my opinion the use of space in the animation is what makes it so special. The way in which the character slowly travels through and transforms his environment is very creatively and (more importantly) effectively executed. Though it was a cartoon animation, the movement through the piece was not choppy, but very smooth and even lifelike.

The use of depth to create a greater sense of space is extremely important in a story which is about a character who is changing that same space which he is traveling through. There were plenty of objects in the foreground and background (signs, buildings, cars, etc.) which effectively created a sense of depth in the piece. If you look closely at the background, the sky itself looks like a crumpled piece of paper. It was little things like this that made this animation flow so smoothly. The style of the animation is very important as a complement to the theme and story of the piece. Ultimately, all these element help create a very compelling animation.

Video and Flash

As a film major, I found the video project a lot more entertaining and less demanding than the animation project. The video project went smoothly for the most part: preproduction was important in setting up the rest of the project. After Jake
(my partner) and I planned out the film, it was pretty much smooth sailing from there. All we had to do was find someone to act in the film (which one of Jake's friends did very well), shoot the project and finally edit it. Since the actual shoot was only about an hour and fifteen minutes long (which I initially thought was a ridiculously small amount of time to shoot a project in) we had to limit ourselves in terms of locations. But I think we did a good job with managing our time: in the end we were able to get the coverage we needed to in order to accurately cut all the shots together. We also got some very nice shots we had not originally thought up. After the shoot, the editing took a bit of time because we had a lot of material to work with. We actually ended up having to cut out a whole scene from our original plan because it didn't work in terms of continuity (screen direction) with the rest of the film. We also lost our audio- but we quickly fixed that by placing a soundtrack to fill in for the diegetic sounds we had recorded (which weren't essential to the story). Besides those two concerns, editing went over smoothly and we ended up with the film we had originally planned to shoot (more or less).

In order to get the animation project completed, I traveled a bumpier road. As a film major I initially thought the animation project was a waste of my time, but as I worked on it I realized it wasn't very different from the video project. Preparation was just as vital in the flash project as it was in the video project. Before actually jumping into the project, I had to carefully consider what I was capable of doing and how I would go about it. I also noticed some similarities between Flash and Final Cut, such as the use of time lines and key frames in the editing process. The one thing I found much harder was the fact that I was not merely capturing staged action anymore, but was forced to actually create and manipulate staged action. Though Flash jargon makes it seem like a more stifling medium (especially when it comes to actionscript), both film making and creating animation demand a lot of authorial creativity. Actionscript was tough, I'm not going to lie. Most of what I heard in class was forgotten the second I sat down to complete my interactivity project-- or perhaps I never fully digested it. It's difficult to teach something that's not as theoretical as it is practical and that's why I think I couldn't retain a lot of the material covered in the Flash lectures. When you're sitting in a lecture hall trying to take notes on how to work in Flash it's not as useful as sitting in front of the computer and actually working on Flash. It took some messing around with Flash and actionscript until I kind of figured things out (enough to finish my project), but I think it was time well spent.

By the end of both projects I was able to more fully appreciate both the work that goes into making a film and the work that goes into creating an animation. My interest in Flash has actually been whetted by the animation project. As both a film and English major, I appreciate cinema and literature as the outstanding mediums of storytelling that they are. In literature I see the predominant storytelling medium of the past. In cinema I see the predominant storytelling medium of the present. And in computer driven mediums like Flash I see a chance of becoming the predominant storytelling medium of the future. It's a simple rational behind why these mediums progress in such a manner, because each one has something to offer which its predecessor does not. Film has the visual element which lacks in literature and computer driven mediums have the interactivity which film lacks. I'm not saying that cinema will one day become obsolete, just as literature enjoys the same popularity as it has in years past, but new interactive mediums have the potential to revolutionize a dimension of storytelling which film lacks: user participation.

Natalia Almada Presentation

I found Natalia Almada's films (or the excerpts we saw) compelling for a couple of reasons. As a Hispanic American born of immigrant parents, I was able to connect to the subject matter of her films. The struggle between two conflicting languages and cultures is one that I am familiar with. More impacting, however, was the immediate content of a film like Al Otro Lado. The issue over illegal immigration is a predominant one not only in American politics, but in American sociological life as well. Immigration is not just an issue that lawmakers have to deal with, but one that the American population is involved with on a regular basis. Its impossible to come by an American who does not have an opinion on the topic. I think what Almada did well in Al Otro Lado was reveal the situation from not only one side of the issue, but from both. I'm not disputing that her vision is not a biased one, after all the film follows a Mexican immigrant, but she does take the time to interview the citizen "police" force in Arizona to balance out the film. I think another important thing this film does is explore the issue from an angle not often understood, that of the Mexican immigrant facing the decision to emigrate. There are a lot of people blind and often ignorant to the reasons why immigrants find themselves having to make such a crucial decision. Almada successfully explores this angle of the issue.

All Water Has a Perfect Memory was an intriguing film. Structurally, the film is quite intricate. The dominance of audio in the film was a risky venture on Almada's part but it worked because the story unfolds through what we hear. The visuals compliment the auditory elements. Looking at it from a metaphoric perspective, the dominance of sound in the film demonstrates how Almada's memories of her sister are constructed mainly by the details she has heard from her family. The memory is not reconstructed through visual elements (pictures, videos) because without the explicative voices these visuals mean nothing.

I respect the fact that Almada seems to have made this film for herself rather than to gear it toward satisfying an audience. This, however, is probably the reason some people have a problem with the film, because of how "personal" it is. I disagree with this notion because I think the film is more than just a sob story. The film is grounded in the father and mother's parallel cultures, which is depicted in the fact that they speak different languages and in the description of where they were and what they were doing at the time of their daughter's death. The physical and cultural separation is reconciled only after the death of their daughter.
I would argue the notion that the film is too "personal" on the grounds that all film making has to be and is "personal" by nature. We bring our subjective ideas, visions and prejudices to any film we make- whether it be a documentary regarding unsanitary cattle raising practices or a fictitious piece about aliens with not so subtle environmentalist subtexts. Its part of the film making process- from choosing what you place in the frame to choosing what shots are edited into the film. Objectivity is impossible in film making. Almada, however, demonstrates how subjectivity can enhance your final product by making a film that did not seek to convey any objectivity to please an audience but instead creating a piece that meant something for her. It's a lesson a lot of artists (film makers, writers, musicians) forget sometimes: to create art because you are compelled to create something meaningful for yourself, not because you are seeking to satisfy an audience.

Antonioni's Blow Up: Conceptions of Reality

A movie is not a movie without the editing process. Editing is integral to creating not only the sequence of events and how they unfold in a movie, but is also essential to the thematic content of a film. The right editing can emphasize themes already established by other aspects of the movie (e.g. plot, dialogue, mise-en-scene). I think a great example of this type of editing can be seen in Michelangelo Antonioni's "Blow Up."

Although the editing is outstandingly done throughout the movie, I'd like to concentrate on a specific scene to demonstrate the kind of effect it can produce. The scene being analyzed is the final scene of the film. For the most part, the editing in this scene follows the conventions of continuity editing; that is to say that there are no significant jump cuts or any disjointed cuts. The cutting is done seamlessly; all transitions are smooth. The shots of the mime filled car, although cut and edited together from different angles, keep the essential visual and the auditory elements consistent to establish continuity. This fact in itself is important. Since what the audience is viewing moves so uninterruptedly, it simulates the notion that what is being seen is natural, but more importantly real.

Reality, specifically the perception of reality, is something that is brought into question shortly after in this scene, partly through the editing. The way the mime's tennis game is edited, with shots of the two mimes edited alongside reaction shots from the mime crowd and Thomas (the protagonist), create the sense that an actual tennis game is going on. The crowd of mimes follows the imaginary tennis ball, the camera cuts from face to face to show that they are intently following the game as if it were something really occurring. When one of the players "hits" the ball toward the fence, one of the mimes in the crowd reacts sharply as if in direct correlation with the "stray ball." In fact, the combination of the mimes' participation in this imaginary game and the seamless editing, brings into question one's notion of reality. To further muddle our perceptions on what is real, Thomas takes part in the mimes' game.

At first Thomas is just a bystander, smiling at the mimes and acknowledging one of the players as she recovers the ball. But when the ball crosses the gated realm of the tennis court and out into the fresh meadow of reality, he unhesitatingly decides to take part in the reality that the mimes have created by retrieving the ball for them. Another interesting editing point is how Thomas' eye line match is cut side by side with the imaginary ball that has gone over the fenced court as if he were watching an actual ball roll along the grass.

The overwhelmingly intriguing part of this scene (which justifies ever bringing up the point of reality) is located at the very end of the scene, after Thomas has thrown the ball back to the mimes. The camera does not shift back to the mimes, but stays focused on Thomas as he continues to watch the game. Then we hear tennis rackets; the audio track hear implies that the tennis game has recommenced. But there were no tennis rackets being used; this brings everything we have seen to this point into question. The fact that the camera does not cut away from Thomas and the we are hearing sounds not connected to anything in the scene implies that we are inside his head- we are hearing what he is hearing. Throughout the movie Thomas is trying to solve a mysterious crime, but now we are forced to ask if this crime was ever what Thomas perceived it to be or if it is as imaginary as the game of tennis? Has Thomas' perception of reality (i.e. the events that have unfolded before us as we follow him throughout the movie) been erred all along? At the end of the scene Thomas just disappears, a cut that strongly contrasts the continuity editing that has preceded this moment. Thomas' disappearance brings us back to the theme of reality. It makes us realize that we are not witnessing reality but a framed perception- a movie. We realize that everything we have seen leading up to this moment could have been just as dissoluble as the character of Thomas as he fades away.

Media: My Connection to the World

I think society is at a point where the question to be posed is no longer if you use the technology available but rather how you use it and to what ends. Like many others, I am highly involved with media on a regular basis. In my pocket I have my smart phone which keeps me connected to the rest of the world at all times. I do everything from constantly checking my e-mail in order to correspond with my boss to keeping up with distant friends through Facebook to searching for information via the web. Honestly, without my cell phone I'd feel as if I were missing a vital limb without which I could not possibly function and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

I would disagree with those that think we are becoming a society "too reliant" on technology such as computers and cell phones. I believe that these different forms of media are there for us to use, not to abuse, but to utilize to progress. From grassroot campaigns to artists trying to get their work out to the world, there have been countless numbers of people whose ideas have shattered the boundaries set by older technologies thanks to the media that is available today. Media today is defined by its ability to help us connect with one another.

To think of all the technological advancements that have taken place over the last two decades amazes me. This is nowhere truer than in one of my favorite forms of media, video gaming. It's impossible not to be astonished when you compare where we are today in terms of video gaming and where we were just a few decades ago. The evolution of media as a whole is reflected through the evolution of gaming: from the humble beginnings of the Atari all the way through the Playstation 3, XBOX 360 and Wii. Despite the huge success of the PS3 and 360, the console that most impresses me is the Wii for how it has redefined the way we interact with our gaming systems. The Wii reflects the ideals of all new technology: revolutionizing the way we think of and use our media. It has stepped outside the boundaries set by remote controllers and has completely redifined the conventional style of play by directly correlating human movements with video game character's movements.

Another aspect of today's media that is reflected through video gaming systems is the idea that technology today has made the world "a smaller place." Its incredible that I can turn on my PS3 or XBOX 360 connect to the PS Network or XBOX Live and play/chat/interact with millions of other players from all over the globe. I play on the PS Network with my nephews all the time and its a comforting notion to know that you can keep in touch with distant friends or relatives through a gaming platform!

We may be living on the same planet as in decades past, but the world has become a much smaller place thanks to the advent of all the media out there that lets us connect with one another.

Looking Back

As a person who is not very tech-savvy, I have found that this class has paved a very useful foundation for my knowledge of different types of media. I have learned basics about film, photography and web design that will be useful in my education as a film major. Since I am a film major, I found that I favored some lectures more than others at first (i.e. those that dealt exclusively with film related topics) like learning about cameras and the ways in which they function. I really enjoyed the labs where we got to use the cameras to record. But as the semester progressed, my biases wore off because I realized that everything we learned applied to me as a filmmaker. Though at first I was turned off a bit by the computer related lectures, I soon came to realize that as a filmmaker in today's world, knowing all these things will be very useful if not necessary.
I really understand the concept of media convergence now. Knowing how to effectively use computers and the web is not only essential to web designers or people who work in computer related fields, but also to filmmakers now because of the roles that things like the Internet have taken on in different mediums. Today, computers are essential for filmmakers in areas like editing and even exhibition, since today movies can be seen over the web. Even things like designing dvd covers and posters to advertise one's film requires knowledge on how to effectively use computers. In addition to all this, I learned that some things can cross medium boundaries. For example, things like knowing design principles is not only useful to a web designer, but also to filmmakers who have to soundly compose their shots. I've learned a lot about how different mediums are coming closer together with the technology available to us today.
The lecture/lab split worked really well for this class. Learning about things in a strictly theoretical manner can get very boring. The lab section of the class, however, reinforced what we learned in the lectures in a more practical, hands-on experience. This type of reinforcement is not only more enjoyable than strictly learning material without actually practicing it, but it makes it easier to remember what we learn since we are actually engaging in it. Overall, I found the class to be very useful to me as a media maker and I am looking forward to taking the second half of the class next semester.

Extra Credit- Darius Khondji's Work in Se7en

Darius Khondji's cinematographic work in David Fincher's film "Se7en" is outstanding. Its difficult to pick a point where to begin, but the element that stuck out most to me about the film's cinematography was chiaroscuro, or the contrast of lights and shadows. The film as a whole, has a very dark, moody feel to it in terms of cinematography and it works perfectly for a film about a dark, coarse subject matter. Se7en is about two detectives working a series of linked murder cases in a gritty urban scene; Dharius Khondji captures the atmosphere surrounding the story perfectly through his cinematography.

The physical darkness being captured could serve several different purposes in this film beside simply representing the mood of the film. The harsh shadows that are often thrown on Morgan Freeman's face can be interpreted as symbolic of his character's mindset; he plans on retiring from the police force, but the darkness represents his uncertainty in his decision. During the dinner scene between Somerset (Freeman), Mills (Pitt), and Tracy (Paltrow), Somerset's face has harsh shadows on it, while Mills' and Tracy's don't. Somerset's outlook on the city (and the world as represented by the microcosmic city) is a very pessimistic one; after years of chasing criminals, Somerset feels a hopelessness for humanity. The shadows that are often cast on his face can also represent his bleak outlook on life.


There are many other scenes where the lighting is done extremely well in the film, I'll point out a couple. Lighting is used to make the scene where the SWAT team is heading up to room 306 (where they think the murderer is) look amazing. The main source of light comes from the lights attached to the rifles of the SWAT team. The combination of low and high camera angles used during this scene also amplify the feeling of tension as they approach the apartment. The use of a red light during the "Lust" murder (of the prostitute) also serves as an example of good lighting technique. The red light not only works as metaphoric for the red light district, but it also creates a feeling of danger and excitement that add to the tension rising as they get further into the murders.

The rift between Somerset and Mills (the sagacious verteran and the impulsive rookie) comes through in the way that Khondji films their scenes together. An example of one such scene is when the two are sitting on opposite sides of the frame as they argue whether or not the murderer is a lunatic. The composition of the shot, having Somerset on one end of the frame and Mills on the other represents the gap that exists between the two because of their difference in views. This occurs once again during a pan after the interrogation scene- during the pan we see Somerset alone in one interrogation room and then Mills alone in the next, emphasizing their literal and metaphoric separation.

My favorite shot, in terms of composition, is when the murderer has the gun to Mill's head. A low camera angle and a close up are used to capture Mill's expression as the water drips from his face (like tears). Then there is a shot of the murderer standing over Mills, with the gun in full focus and the murderer out of focus. It is a very ominous shot that captures suspense and tension very well-- something that Khondji is able to do successfully throughout the entire film.

Design I Like: Full Metal Jacket's Cover Art

COVER VERSION 1

Version 1 of the design on the cover of the "Full Metal Jacket" DVD perfectly complements Stanley Kubrick's film. Regarding it from an aesthetic perspective, it works very well for several reasons when compared to the version below (cover version 2).

COVER VERSION 2

The first thing that stuck out to me was the alignment in both versions of the cover. The alignment of the images and words in both versions are centered. In version 1, however, we get the title of the film all in one line so that as our eyes travel down from that point, the rest of the cover seems to get narrower. It is basically presented as an upside down triangle, with the largest side of the triangle being represented by the title which leads us toward the tip of the triangle, which in this case is the soldier in the center of the picture. In version 2, the title spans four lines and is too neatly aligned with the rest of the image on the cover. Basically, version 2 is too symmetrically centered whereas version 1 establishes balance without keeping everything too lined up.
Part of the problem with lining everything up like it is done in version 2 is that it creates the unpleasing white spaces on the sides of the cover. Those white spaces can be put to better use, as is done in version 1 by filling them in with a jungle background. Part of what pleases me so much about version 1 is the use of color. The colors are not bright nor vivid, instead they are dark and bleak; creating the sense that the film's content will also be somberly blunt. The use of green and black as the primary colors emphasize the idea of a dark war being fought in a jungle terrain.
The typography in both versions is also noticeably different. I don't at all like the curves of the thick block letters in version 2. Size wise they take up too much space, font wise they don't complement the film as well as the letters used in version 1. In version 1, the title is not overwhelmingly large, because it does not have to be. It uses sleek transparent letters against the green background, which are filled in in a coarse manner with tinges of green.

I like the use of the helmet in both versions; it shows how the animosity of war (in the form of the bullets and the phrase "Born to Kill") overwhelms the tiny peace symbol on the side. It creates the sense that peace is marginalized in the midst of war. The font used for the "Born to Kill" phrase works well because it appears to be hand written. To add to the idea that the phrase is "hand-written," the letter I in the word kill is left in its lower case form as opposed to all the other upper case letters in the phrase.
Ultimately, the reason why I prefer version 1 over version 2 is because it better complements the actual film. Take for example the use of the helmet: in version 2 the helmet stands alone and its meaning is limited because of this, but when put in the context of version 1 it takes on more meaning. The fact that the helmet now covers a soldier's face becomes a focal point in cover 1. The helmet does not lose its importance in cover 1, instead it gains more focus by being placed in the direct center of the cover. Once placed on the soldier's head, it creates the idea of anonymity for the soldier; an idea central to the film which uses nicknames as opposed to proper names for its central characters. War, in essence, creates anonymity. The film explores the idea that a soldier is more than just a soldier and that they lose bits and pieces of themselves as they delve further into their service. The film also tackles the issue of anonymity as it applies to the enemies fought. Soldiers are pushed to think of enemies in a very general sense: enemies cannot be human, they have to be nameless creatures. That is what makes killing them easier for the soldier. "Full Metal Jacket" is a spectacular movie that delves into the soldier's psyche to explore these themes and it is only fitting that its cover be just as spectacularly insightful.

"What I See" in Rear Window

Alfred Hitchcock once said that "there is a distinct difference between suspense and surprise." To Hitchcock, suspense was about involving the audience in a scene and creating anxiety within that scene, usually by having them see something which a character in the film could not see. Hitchcock is now considered a master of creating suspense within cinema and in a film like Rear Window it can be seen why. In a nutshell, Rear Window is about a photographer who is stuck at home because of an injury, begins to spy on his neighbors, discovers a possible murder and tries to gather evidence (with the help of his girlfriend) to prove the murder occurred.
Audience involvement plays a large part in the creation of Hitchcockian suspense and it is rather simple to achieve in a film where the main theme is voyeurism, a topic that easily lends itself both to viewer association (in that we are in a sense voyeurs when we view the lives of others through cinema) and to suspense. The voyeuristic tendencies of the protagonist Jefferies (played by James Stewart) are emphasized throughout the film by the use of subjective point of view editing. Many times we get a shot of Jefferies, then a shot of what he sees, and lastly a shot of his reaction. There are even some scenes where Jefferies uses a camera with a telephoto lens attached to get a closer look at the subjects of his spy work. In these scenes, the frame is changed to a circular one and a telephoto lens is actually used to create the sense that we are seeing exactly what Jefferies is seeing. By giving us these point of view shots, Hitchcock limits our scope to Jefferies' perspective. It is as though the camera is not actually a camera, but Jefferies' eyes. Another way in which the camera acts as Jeffries' eyes is through pans and tilts. Whenever Jefferies surveys a scene, the camera either pans or tilts in the direction which his eyes are moving.
As a result of this, the audience is pushed to connect with Jefferies because we are seeing what he sees. Another reason why we connect with him is that we get a lot of close ups of Jefferies as opposed to the long shots we get of the antagonist Thorwald. By keeping Jeffries closer to the camera and Thorwald farther, Hitchcock creates a more intimate relationship between the viewer and Jefferies and a more distant relationship between the viewer and Thorwald. Hitchcock continually involves the audience with Jefferies' world by giving them access to private things that should not be seen (by neither Jefferies nor the audience). An interesting note about framing can be made when Jefferies looks in on his neighbors and views them through their windows. These windows act as a frame to the events which Jefferies is looking in on, creating a sense that these events are framed for Jeffries to watch as the film is framed for the viewer to watch. The windows are frames within the frame of the film, yet another link between Jeffries and the viewer of the film.
There is a scene in the film which demonstrates how brilliantly, yet simply, Hitchcock is able to create suspense within the film. Lisa (played by Grace Kelly) breaks into Thorwald's apartment in order to gather evidence. As Lisa is in the apartment, we see Thorwald walking up the steps to his apartment within the same frame. By juxtaposing these two simple scenarios, Hitchcock is able to create immediate suspense through composition. The viewer sees Thorwald and knows Lisa does not. Immediately the viewer begins to wonder whether Lisa will be caught or not and what will happen if she is. The fact that this is all being witness from the point of view of Jefferies from the apartment across adds to the voyeuristic "feel" of the film. Through such a manner, Hitchcock is able to capture the suspense of voyeurism in Rear Window.

Museum of the Moving Image

I remember being to the Museum of the Moving Image when I was younger and having loved it the first time I was there. So it came as no surprise that I really enjoyed this second trip to the museum. I was really amazed to see how far the technology surrounding moving images has come over the last century or so. Viewing the thaumatrope and zoetrope made witnessing the Feral Fount exhibit that much more impressive. It was amazing to see how something as elaborate as the Feral Fount evolved from something as simple as thaumatropes and zoetropes; the Feral Fount works in the same basic way: displaying the still images and incorporating the flickering light to make the still images seem as they are moving.
The automated dialogue replacement exhibit was pretty cool; I really like hands-on exhibits. I know they might seem boring but my favorite exhibits were the Kinetoscope and The Great Train Robbery exhibits. I've read a lot about the Kinetoscope and actually getting to see one in action was great. Its hard to fathom that the movie technology we use today, like the grand IMAX theatres, began from such humble beginnings as the tiny Peep Shows of the Kinetoscope which only a single person was able to view at a time. I also learned something new about Kinetoscopes from the tour guide: that their nitrate film was flammable, which didn't fare well with the fact that they were made of wood. The reason I liked The Great Train Robbery exhibit is basically the same: its pretty cool to see how cinema has evolved from short, unedited, straightforward narratives to the CGI saturated, intricate plot line films we see today. Seeing The Great Train Robbery in its soundless, black and white simplicity and then comparing it to something like Transformers with its over the top CGI and computer effects really goes to show how far the technology surrounding moving images has come.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog. Hope you're interested in what I've got to say, and if you're not thats too bad. Come back!