Going Beyond the Still Image: CHAPTER 1?!

So I was assigned to another blog assignment:

Check out these student film finalists in a festival hosted by Vimeo "Going Beyond the Still Image" meaning taking video instead of just photos. Choose one film and identify with at least 3 STILLS how the imagery supports the narrative or story in terms of:
1. Characterization- who is in the movie
2. Conflict- what is the climatic moment
3. The resolution and feeling left in the film .

And so, here I am. I chose this movie called "Going Beyond the Still Image: Chapter 1: The Cabbie."

It's this very interesting movie you can watch here:


Chapter 1: The Cabbie from Vincent Laforet on Vimeo.

From the following stills, you can infer a lot of things using the imagery about the story and other terms I'm supposed to find for this assignment. :D




In this shot the audience established the prelude point of the story: the finding of the teddy bear. This shot also establishes that this man is a Cabbie. Hahaha. Also after this shot he takes the doll home. What he does with it, is established in the next shot, where someone the audience presumes to be his daughter appears.



Using the above image the audience establishes a relationship between the man, girl, and the bear: Father, Daughter, and mysterious gift.



The shots above and below establish a climactic point: the finding of a key in the bear. This also establishes a relationship between the girl and the actual conclusion of the story which will be discussed in the next shot. This shot creates various questions from the audience, but the most important question? "Where does the key go?"



The shot below is the conclusion, which is pretty open-ended. It implies the answer to the previous question, in which this trunk is where the key goes. It leaves the audience wanting more, becoming curious as to what happens next, will the girl find this trunk, who put the key there, why was the bear on the sidewalk, and so on and so forth. What piques the audience's interest even MORE is probably the fact that the trunk is moving like something wants to escape. Closer much needed, yes?




When I watched this I was totally like, "AARRAGHHGHHHH WHERE'S CHAPTER 2?!" :[

But that is for another day I suppose...when it actually gets made...

For now, Assignment: COMPLETED.

Italian Neo-Realism: FOUR PAGE PRIMER?!

So I'm supposed to read this four page primer about Italian Neo-Realism, where you CAN read here:

https://www.greencine.com/central/guide/italianneorealism

though honestly I don't know what would compel you to do so hahaha. It's vaguely interesting though, if you're a film nut :D

Onward with the assignment I say!

* List the key Ideology and Thematic Goals- (use quotes from article)

- Federico Fellini said "For my generation, born in the 20s, movies were essentially American. American movies were more effective, more seductive. They really showed a paradise on earth, a paradise in a country they called America."

- Anti-Fascist journalist Leo Longanesi urged directors to "go into the streets, into the barracks, into the train stations; only in this way can an Italian cinema be born."

- Calvino pointed out, "neo-realists knew too well that what counted was the music and not the libretto."

- André Bazin called it a cinema of "fact" and "reconstituted reportage,"

- Cesare Zavattini stated: "This powerful desire of the [neo-realist] cinema to see and to analyze, this hunger for reality, for truth, is a kind of concrete homage to other people, that is, to all who exist."

 - Fellini: "looking at reality with an honest eye - but any kind of reality; not just social reality, but also spiritual reality, metaphysical reality, anything man has inside him."

* Describe the historical context of the movement

- Started in the 1930's but never fully recognized until 1943, ending in 1952. Cinema fully under control of the regime, and only a few movies were allowed to show[such as Treno popolare (1933) by Rafaello Matarazzo, Jean Renoir's Toni (1935) and Alessandro Blassetti's 1860 (1934)] Linked to the Resistance movement. World War II's immediate postwar period.

* List the Cinematic Techniques

-  "Cinematically, neo-realism pushed filmmakers out of the studio and on to the streets, the camera freed-up and more vernacular, the emphasis away from fantasy and towards reality."

* Identify key contributors and give a short summary of their contributions

- Cesare Zavattini: functions as a kind of godfather of the movement

- Roberto Rossellini, Luchino Visconti, Vittorio De Sica, Giuseppe De Santis: Film-makers who contributed to the neo-realism arc.

- Guillio Andreotti: wrote the Andreotti Law (1949); personified the unhappiness some Italians expressed about the neo-realism era, which displayed their country is such a stark, horrible way.

* Identify the key films of the movement and why they were significant.

 - Roberto Rossellini's Roma: città aperta (Open City, 1946) shows most clearly neo-realism's link with the Resistance movement.

-In Paisà (Paisan, 1946), Rossellini directly engaged the effects of the American presence in Italy, complicated by the Yankee shift from enemy to ally, his overall theme being that war is an equal-opportunity brutalizer. 

- La Terra Trema (The Earth Trembles, 1948) took Luchino Visconti to Aci Trezza on Sicily. Far more documentary in style than the other neo-realist films.

- Vittorio De Sica's Ladri di biciclette (Bicycle Thieves, 1948) orchestrated carefully, shooting some scenes with multiple cameras and drawing attention to its existence as fiction, not a documentary.

- Visconti's terrific Bellissima (1951), though not traditionally considered a neo-realist film, focused on people's lives in the wake of war, the sense of wanting to better oneself and the struggle to find a way out of the grind of poverty.

- Umberto D. (1951), which was De Sica's favorite film and is in many ways the masterpiece of neo-realism.

- Giuseppe De Santis's Riso amaro (Bitter Rice, 1949) was described at the time as the "last gasp of the neo-realist movement."

Reverie and the DSLR Revolution: Analysis

So, I'm supposed to watch this video that used this like, awesome camera. But I can't tell if they're hyping up the camera, or the lens--but whatever, right? The picture looks pretty damn awesome, captures great in low light, and captures clear and vivid pictures, AND has a pretty accurate focus.

So, using this video that supposedly started some revolution I was told to take three screenshots and analyze just how good this camera is. But I don't really know what he means by that so I'll just wing it. Let's go!



Okay so this picture definitely shows one about the selective focus feature. It's pretty awesome, since most camera can't do this so clearly. I think it's an interesting shot too, picture using the rearview mirror, and, by using the selective focus, the audience doesn't get distracted by the background and their eyes are drawn straight to the mirror's image. How cool is that?



Well, there's not much else to say about the pictures above and below. They display both the low light, and selective focus parts of the camera's abilites. I personally like the picture above best. It's a beautiful picture in my opinion, though most people wouldn't find it very attractive. Haha.

Editing Demos! Whooooaaaaaa

So I partnered up with Mark, and we were assigned this editing concept, see? And you see, well, see here, that see, well we hadda, well, make a video see? A video for two a' these concepts, see? And these concepts, these concepts were some fancy shmancy things see? Point of view, see? And..and the 180 degree rule see? And we, we combined them see? No? You don't see? Well, here. Now you can see it.



1. Concept/Script:
- How well does your story demonstrate your concept?

Although It demonstrates it well, it could be better, and the story is too short to actually display an acceptable amount of my concepts(for example each concept is only demonstrated once).

- What problems did you have and what might you have done better?

That would be the story-line and plot. The fight could have been prolonged, more point of view shots could have been established,  and the plot itself is way too short and does not display any point whatsoever.

2. Camera Work-
- How well did you shot your actors in their scenes?

I think the shots were fine, but problems like lighting and some camera placement could have been fixed to make it so much better.

- Describe your most creative shot.

I suppose the most creative shot would be the two shot...But that's not really creative now, is it?

3. Edit-
- What challenges did you have in the edit?

The video was too short to actually be long enough for me to do my voice-over, for one thing! It was way less than a minute, and the shots were way too short! That's when I got creative--How about pausing and rewinding? What about just prolonging the shots to make enough room for the audio? So I did. I made enough room, and added in some fonts and texts.

- What did you have to do to demonstrate your concept in the edit?

Well, I had to think outside of the box to make the project even remotely gradable. I took the very few shots and used editing tricks like reverse, sound effects, and I utilized the texts. I just used what I had and made it work. That's it.

Solitude Commentary

-REALLY LATE-

Like, A milliion years later, I do my film blog assignment. It's to do a commentary on this Trailer:


Solitude — Movie Trailer from Mike Skocko on Vimeo.

 I'm not really sure if he wants me to do the entire thing or not, so I'll do a little of everything just to be sure, since it's already late and all.

Mis En Scene
In this trailer your eyes generally get dragged all over the place, but not forcibly. You get stuck on something and then the slightest interruption gets attention. Of course, I don't mean like you get distracted by something like a pencil moving or anything. The director doesn't move the camera much, thus creating a huge effect: You get attracted to what's in the foreground, but the transitions, when the camera does move, and the background pulls your attention to the important parts. For example this scene:



The kids just arrive, and the as they get themselves settled, the camera leads the audience to the phone, which is obviously left on and has a dial tone for some reason. You can clearly see the blurred legs of the kids, but the audience gets drawn in to the phone. The director utilizes this type of shot to establish something wrong. I mean, if you had a phone that was already on, what would you think? That someone was there, that something must of happened to make them in such a rush to not hang up(be it something trivial or dire depends entirely on your disposition of course). Most importantly, it establishes tension.

One of my favorite shots is this though:



It starts from a completely black frame, where I personally got confused, but then when the door Opened and the light spilled in, the kids coming in making a fuss settling themselves I immediately thought: How Creative! Though it probably isn't the first time it's been applied in a film, it was interesting that he put this in.

The change in light from No key to a bright low key blinds the audience for a moment, then quickly adjusts their vision to the sight of kids coming in.

Though I can't really say there isn't a lot of editing, there isn't too little editing either. The director uses a good amount of cuts, with some lengthy footage every now and then. But as mentioned before, the effect created is pretty phenominal,

Take this shot for example:



The shot starts with the simple one shot of the girl crying. Clearly showing some fear, then it just intensifies when the camera moves and reveals the guy taped to the wall. Talk about sweeping the dust under the rug. The director utilizes the fact that the audience only sees what's on screen and in the frame, and manipulates that effect by revealing the other sides of the setting. It got my heart jumping, that's for sure.

The Music was fitting. Creepy, suspenseful, nerve-wracking. But most importantly, it had those small effects that people don't really notice, but influence them alot. For example in the earlier scene the music stops, when its the one shot of the girl, but nobody notices. It's just something that's not there to mingle with her sobs is all. Then the music just BOOMS when the camera moves and reveals the poor guy on the wall.

Tactfully, what gets me the most is surprisingly what ISN'T on screen. Bet this cross your mind way too many times: What got them? Amazing effect, and utilizes the audiences' fear and imagination. After all, fear varies from person to person, and what fear really is, is actually not knowing. You don't know what's in the dark, so you are afraid of it. You don't know how they're alive, so you're afraid of Zombies. You don't know if you can kill them, so you're afraid of vampires and werewolves. You can't see what's behind you. You don't know what's behind you. So you tentively get paranoid if you're alone, and it's quiet. Of course this only applies to those who actually have said respective fears.

The actors in the movie are just people, so their costumes didn't really stick out--which is a good thing in some cases--and they didn't suddenly change from one scene to another when they were supposed to be the same, so the Continuity Secretary did a good job, don't you think? The shot in the car however...the placement was awkward, and it seemed to make the actors awkward in my eyes as well.

The writing and idea itself if pretty damn interesting. It catches your eye, and is bound to make you jump here or there. Even if only for a little. It's making me paranoid just sitting here on my own couch thinking about it! Hah. But I'm just a little scaredy cat so it doesn't really matter anyway.

I suppose that is all I have to say. So...ENDPOST.