Stagecoach

Well first of all I am going to say I was surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. I think this has become so clichéd in our class. Everyone seams to say this. I said it about silent movies and now I am saying it about westerns. It took me ages to finally get round to watching this. I had the dvd but I still could not motivate myself to watch it. Espealiy since Serpico and Casino have been staring at me since christmas. So I thought I would watch the trailer on youtube to get some motivation and ended up clicking on Stagecoach part one. So I started to watch it in the back ground with facebook open and Road Wars on the TV. Within about 5 minuets I was hooked and my dvd player was warming up. I am still not sure how it happened. It was not that exiting a beginning. I think it might be because I knew it was building up to some thing. The scene was set very quickly and you knew who everyone was in the first five minutes.  I now cared about these people and wanted to know what was going to happen to them.


I did enjoy what happened to them. I thought that the film had a good pace about it. It flowed well from scene to scene and always kept your focus. It was tense and they did this well. It was not just what I thought it would be which was cowboys shooting Indians. They didn't show us the Indians until almost the end. I was tense because of the unknown. I had no idea how the indians would attack or how evil they were. I liked this. It was nice to see a film not show you the danger just hear about it from others. The first sign we see is only smoke and it gets your heart pumping a little bit. 

Overall I would say once again that I surprised myself by enjoying it as much as I did. It was sort of what i expected in the way it looked but not at all in the way the story was told. Having said this to my dad he will now be thrusting dvds and names of better westerns in my face. He allready has mentioned a few I should watch. So those of you who have been putting this off I say go for it. You might find that a whole new library of films will be opened up to you.

An in depth study of buttons.

This blog can be found at http://morethanreflection.blogspot.com/

A Movie Quiz.

I was at a pub quiz last year. For one of the rounds we were given a piece of paper with alternative movie title on it. For example celeirty hostilitys = Star Wars. 

So I thought I would would post them up here and see if anybody could work them all out. We did get a few but some of them were quite hard. So here they are.

The Resonance Of Melody =

Unmitigated Reminiscence =

The Environment  =

Straightforward Stipulation = 

Souvenir =

The Sovereign of Jesting =

Succinct incisions = 

Accident =

Daylight Maintenance =

Fasten =

If you think you know any of them then comment below. :-)

I miss Civello, Bickle, Vronsky, LaMotta, Cady and Noodles.

Where is Travis Bickle? What  I mean is when did the leading actor in Hollywood become the leading actor in Hollywood because of his looks. When Robert De Diro was at the top of his game he was there because he blow away the audience in every film he made. For instance if you look at Mean Streets.


As soon as he walks into a scene you know it is going to change. Your enjoyment of it doubles. Now that is partly because of the way Harvey Keitel and De Niro bounce off of each other but it is mostly to do with De Niro. He was able to bring something so special to the screen. He was able to steal every scene but still be able to be true to his character who is a bit of a bumbling idot. 

One of my favorite things about Taxi Driver is the way it tells the story thorough De Niro's warped eyes. Most actors want to stay likable by the audience so hold back a bit. They do not want to cross the line and become something that the audience can not sympathies with and follow. De Niro pushed the boat out in this film. He was able to go all the way and completely cross the line but keep the audience engaged with him. This worked because he did not care that he was crossing the line. He played true to his character and just wanted to be this best he could be. When you are watching this you end up thinking things you would not usually think. You find yourself hating certain types of people just because Travis Bickle despises them. This is another good thing about the film. At the end of it your are shocked at yourself for thinking those things.


So where did this all go. Why did De Niro fall off his pedestal and not care about the films he makes. In the 70s everyone wanted to work with him. He worked with the leading people in the film industry. The people who were at the forefront of the making films but then he started to make sometimes three films a year. There are rumors that he wanted an influx of cash to pay for a number of things and this is a shame. It is a shame because we will never get another great De Niro film. At least nothing compared to what he his capable of. I don't know if this is because he can't or won't. Maybe he has not had the right film to push him to his limits because the only people who can afford him are the big multi million dollar films. You could say that he would not try and go back to what he is great at because there could be too much of a fall if he gets it wrong but he all ready has fallen so low. All he can do is climb right back to the top and nock Mr RP back down. So lets hope someone does right a truly great script with a wonderful character and maybe De Niro will decide to do it. So here is hoping.


However at first I did think it was a shame that we I never see him again as on from as he used to be but if I do want to see that all I have to do is stick one of his dvds on. Whilst writing this blog and thinking about all the wonderful moments that he has brought to our screens I really want to watch films such as Mean Streets, The Dear Hunter, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver or Once Upon A Time In America again. Or maybe there is an old De Niro film out there that I have still not seen.


I want to leave you with a scene from one of his films. I took me ages to finally pick a clip to put in here. I didn't think it would be so hard to pick a moment but I decided to go with a scene from Cape Fear. In this he is playing a slightly different role than he usually does and it just backs up what I am trying to say bout him being a wonderfully talented actor

A step on from Kuleshov.

I was having a thin about the kuloshov experement. As we know it is the same image of a man cut two diffrent images. 

So this proved that the audience could understand that by putting two images together they where linked. This all seemed so obvious when we were told this. I was thinking of how silly of the people back then to not get this right away and have to take a few years to adjust to the idea of film editing. So then I stared to think about music and how music is used in sort of the same way. If you see a man walking with 'scary' music playing you know that something bad is going to happen. In the same way if 'happy' music is playing you know that everything is fine. You are able to get a feel for the tone of the scene and it can change you whole perspective of a scene. You could have the same image with different music over it and get something completely different. 

It feels quite weird almost taking a step back and looking at how films trick us in to believing the world they have tried to create for us. I suppose I was always aware that by cutting music to an image it was influencing me just like an image cut to another image influences me I just have never really thought about it. 

What is the point in complaining of being offended?

A while back we where talking in class about being offended by TV. A few people said what did offend them but I said that I have never seen anything on TV that has offended me. I saw this comedian that summed up what I was trying to say that day. What does it it mean to be offended. Nothing happens. When people say that they where outraged by a TV program it annoys me. So what if you were, why do do you feel the need to complain. Just don't watch the show that you don't like. There are loads of people who do like the show that you are complaining about so let them watch their show and you can watch the show that are aimed for you. There is something for everyone on TV so people should watch what they like and if you start to watch a show and you are offended just turn over the channel. For example the whole Saxgate saga really annoyed me. There was just no need whatsoever for anyone to complain. What it the point of it. All you are doing is ruining something that loads of people do enjoy. When I say you I don't mean anyone in the class I mean the general public. So anyway rant over and  here is this comedian who I completly agree with and says what I am trying to say.

Who gives a crap about continuity?

I would just like to talk a bit about what we were talking about today in regard to continuity. In some case's it is so obvious and it does take you right out of the movie. You suddenly become aware that you are watching a film and it then takes a while to get back into. I know that you did agree with Andy, it was you after all who raised that point today. I did agree with you but after going home and trying to find the scene in the godfather with the mistake I came across a video which showed about twenty different continuity errors and they are all quite big. So it got me thinking that maybe a mistake can bring you out of the film but if the film is good enough and truly does have you griped then a mistake will not bring you out of the film. I loved the godfather and was engrossed from start to finish without being aware that I was watching a film.

So I would still say that a mistake can bring you out of a film but if it can that must mean that the film does not have you as griped as it should be. So even though the godfather has so many of them it does not matter. If anything it shows how good a film it is if these glaring errors do not distract you.

CAMERA EVALUATION

I turned up early for my assessment which left me plenty of time to get ready and compose myself. This turned out to be very good idea as Ray mentioned it in my tutorial. He said that you are not only judged on what you can do technically but you as a person. So I was off to a good start. I put the tripod up with no difficultly and balanced the camera. I did not encounter any problems here and I remembered to bring a two pence coin with me to tighten the screws on the shoe.


I then referred to my notes when setting up the view finder. I was quite confident that I knew what I was doing but I thought I may as well check it as it was an assessment. Ray said that the contrast was just a little bit too high. He showed me what it should look like so hopefully next time I will get it spot on. I did the same with the monitor when celebrating it. I looked at my notes to be on the safe side and I was able to calibrate it fine.

Time code was simple as was recording the bars. I did not get it exactly on 30sec I was a few frames out but one day it will be spot on. Then it was time to set the back focus. I did not get it quite right in our last assessment and the same thing happened again. I was just a bit out. After speaking to Ray in my tutorial and think I know what I was doing wrong. I was turning the peaking up to the top and setting it. When it looked good I just left it. What I then should have done was turn the peaking off and check it again. What also could have happened is that when I was tightening the screw I could have knocked it.

I am quite confident in lighting so I picked my lights and set them up with not that much difficulty apart from the power pack on the Dedo kit. I picked the broken one and put that one on. I then changed it for a working one and I had not turned it on. This cost me a bit of time and Ray had to come over and switch it on. At least it was a basic error and I did have my lights in the right place.

Overall I thought it when well. I finished with a few minutes to spare which in a way was good but it could have been a lot quicker. In the real world I would have had a lot less time to set it all up and de rig. Ray said that there was no pace about me. I need to look like I am rushing and working hard. If someone is paying me to do a job then I need to look as if I am worth the money. So things to improve on are back focus and being generally faster at everything.

Lovely Bones.

First of all I would like to say that if I ever hear the words my name is Salmon like the fish I will have to hit something. I have been hearing that in the Lovely bones trailers since last year and now I see the film and I hear it again for what feels like 100 times. Just had to get that out, the first thing wrong with this film.

The second thing wrong must be the structure. We know she dies because it is one the first things it tells us in the film so show us it already. Again what feels about 30 minutes in, she finally dies. This might seem a horrible thing to say. "Hurry up and show us the dead girl." But what you have to understand is that for about half a year I have been told this film is about a girl who dies and is stuck in the in between world. So why show us meaningless crap that has nothing to do with the story for the start of the film. This was not even in the book. I do not care about her little brother I want to taken along the story not dragged through the mud for half an hour. Then she does die and it is quite horrible. The tension builds and you have been waiting for it for ages so that bit of the film is good. However you would think that she would die, is stuck in the in between world then try and help her family from the beyond as her killer is still living next door. But no she fannies around in an annoying pointless cgi world for an hour. I hated this about Dr Parnassus and my feelings are the same with this. I want to be moved not watch massive bottles crash into each other on a beach, what is the point in that. Or see her running in front of a green screen with nauseating images projected behind her. Just get on with it!

Putting the general lack of story behind you, you do have one thing that is good. Susan Sarandon but they gave most of her lines to the monotone voice over which is the "Salmon Girl". What is the point of this? Film is a visual medium so show us don't over describe it in a V.O. If you have to say it then let Sarandon say it. She is so much better at delivering lines than the wee girl. When she was allowed to speak she was hilarious and brought some light to the screen unlike Mark Walberg who showed about as much emotion as a tea pot.

Oh and then there was the killer. If anyone was going to cast this film then they would surly pick an evil, hair tingling man. Someone that could scare you with a single glance and that you would be afraid of if you were to even look at them. Again this film lets us down. They cast a totally stereotypical pedo. Nerd, glasses, skinny and disgusting. This is ok and you can total believe that he could be one but I would have rather seen a killer that looks like he would actually have the bottle to kill somebody. This nerd looks like he could just be pushed over and that would be the end of him. He did not have an evil presence about him like Robert De Niro had in Cape Fear.

So this film drags on for an hour after she dies then they final start to click about the killer next door. You then get to see one of the only good scenes in the whole film. The little girl’s sister breaks in to the house next door to try and find evidence to prove that he killed his sister. This part did keep me on the edge of my seat as she rummaged around his house. If you think about it this has been done a thousand times and better. It is just because it is placed in such a god awful film that it seems good. Once you leave and think about it you realise that it was actually it was a mediocre scene. However it was a ray of sunshine in this.

Overall I was very disappointed. I don't know why this film has made me write such a lengthy blog slagging it off. It could be because I have not blogged in so long so feel I should make up for it or it could be that this is film is just that bad. I would strongly recommend you do not see this film unless you want to watch Peter Jackson try and impersonate Tim Burton.

Reflective statement.

At the start of the module I did not fully understand what TV was. I thought that it was merely a box that showed us TV shows. If you had asked me to have a conversation about TV then I could only have talked about a few shows that I watched. After only a few weeks I realised that I there was so much more to TV than what I had thought. Not only did I start to learn about the programs and where they came from more importantly I learned what TV meant to people and how it influenced them. I was able to understand that TV played a massive part in shaping this country to the way it is now.


TV played in a massive part in people's lives. So much more that it does now. It was new and able to teach people in a way they had never been able to before. I also learned how it impacted the cinema. Before TV came along the only place you could see moving pictures was the cinema. Now that had all changed. TV did not just shape the people but also the way in which cinema was made. It was because of TV that the cinemas started to have to sell a cinema experience rather than just a film.


During this class I have also been able to watch some fantastic TV shows. We watched all sorts of TV and it was very interesting to look at what generations before me used to watch.


Overall I have surprised myself in this module. I would never have thought I could learn so much about something. I know now that I still have more to learn. What I am going to take away from this module is that in future I will look at something that I think I understand and challenge myself to think I might not know as much as I could, i.e. dig a little deeper and you will be surprised and what you can find.