screen studies

This film by De Sica, is a film about a poor german family who are given a break in life when the father/husband is given a job as a poster boy. The job, however, involved him having a bike. So after selling their blankets they managed to buy a bike. Life was good, it was a change in fortune for the family.
On the job for the first day the guy was learning the ropes when a everyday thief stole his bike. The rest of the story was an emotional journey involving the son and father fratically run around the city in search for the bike.
This film is classified as a style called Neo-realism, the film

Wow what a boring movie! “Birth of a Nation” this film has two stories that are linked in someway. Both these stories i had great difficulty in following especially the first half. I had great difficulty in just staying awake, so following title pages outlining the story was made near impossible. However, i did make out most of the second half which was about the up-rise of the KKK. This half was very racial and it showed some very controversial scenes showing whites bashing the blacks and visa versa.

Although this film was a 3 hour black and white, silent film marathon. I was happy to see alot of new techniques used that otherwise hadn’t been used in that era. Most in which are still being used today. Some of these techniques that i thought were very effective were the pan shot, the lapse cross fade, the close up shot and most obvious the cross cutting between numerous stories. I believe that these techniques are so effective because when an audience would watch it, it would encourage the audience to concentrate and follow the story where before they would just watch a movie without much thought on what was actually happening which can become boring and repetitive. I was very impressed to see the first ever tracking shot, which was a shot of a member of the KKK riding his horse. However, the film did have numerous faults that annoyed me throughout the whole movie. The over use of the iris fade and softened edges was over used and got quiet annoying. The white actors painted black wasn’t so annoying, funny if anything but it did portray a unbelievable factor about the film.

I found that this film was mostly realism, i say this because it was a film influence by its time and the actors are tame and not trying to act silly or unrealistic, the scenes are all set up to recreate a realistic environment. And the story is realistic, meaning it doesn’t have anything that wouldn’t of happen during that era. There wasn’t anything unbelievable.
In conclusion to this film i thought it was a pioneer of many film techniques and would of been a very good film in its day but from my perspective it was boring and a never again experience for me.

This great film works on the premise that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is the inaction of good men. Against this danger, director Frank Capra shows a naive everyman to be the true guardian of democratic ideals. An innocent everyday person is selected by cynical politicians to replace a recently deceased senator in the belief that he can be manipulated by the state’s esteemed senior senator. Smith sets off for Washington full of ideals and dreams of working with his idol, little realising that he is expected to be played a dummy for a crooked scheme to finance a new dam that will profit only his idol and his thugs. The Washington press immediately take advantage of Smith and make a mockery of his innocence getting him off to a rocky start, but his inexperience and gulliblness motivates his hot new secretary to take action despite her unpatriotic approach at the beginning of the film. She later proves to be a valuable mentor as the innocent Smith slowly comes to realise that his view of the world doesn’t necessarily apply with reality, so once manipulated and played a fool by his states representatives and especially his idol he sets out to fight against them and bring them down no matter what it takes. All in love for his love for his country. Even if it did involve standing in the Senate Chambers for days on end with out sitting down.

The film is enhanced by a travelogue-montage of tourist sights in the nation’s capital, and Dimitri Tiomkin’s medly of flag-waving Americana songs. This scene of the montage of american patriotic sights shows that Mr Smith is a caring and innocent character that is inspired by his forefathers actions. Which says that he really wants to help make his country a better place for all.
Production work included reconstructing a perfect replica of the Senate chamber which i believe was a awesome achievement because until i researched this film i was under the impression that it was filmed in an actual senate chamber, and the film was faithful to how American democracy works (i.e., how a bill becomes a law, political machines, filibustering, etc.) this shows the realism characteristics of the film.
A film technique that was used well in this film was cross cutting, the cross cutting between smith and the people trying to frame him showed the fight and really gave the audience a good view of what was happening from both sides of the story.
Overall i would have to say that this is the most interesting film i have seen in Screen studies to date. And i would recommend it to some one who was interested in films of this period.

Paradise Now
Wow what a powerful film, i was very optimistic about watching this film but now i’m so happy i saw it. This film about 2 childhood friends that are recruited to carry out a suicide bombing the following day. I thought this film was extremely well made which was backed up with good acting and scripts. I feel that the film wasn’t made to take sides on whether or not what they were doing was right or wrong but instead they showed an audience what it might be like if you were in their boots. It showed people a whole new side of these people more commonly known as suicide bombers. I found it almost educational and gave me a whole new view of what these people are feeling and the build up events they go through before they carry out their “orders”
I found that I was so drawn in by this film that i didn’t realise that many technical issues with the film, which almost tells you that it is a great film. The closing scene however did it for me. To see Said on the bus with all those people was crazy. I felt so many different emotions because i new what was going to happen but i didn’t think it would happen. The closing white screen topped it off for me and the whole audience i believe. As the film finished and the credits were showing. I glimpsed around to notice that the crowd was completely quiet and still. It was almost intimidating to be in there.

So if you are up for a powerful movie that will challenge your thinking and very have an effect on you, i would advise you to see this film.

A Asian film, i never thought i would ever say this, but it was really good. Who would of ever thought that a film about creating a restaurant with the best noodles could be so hilarious. This film is literally about a ladies fight to have the best noodles in her area. With a help from her friends and a little luck she becomes the “best.” The film also has a few other little stories going on in the back ground that have nothing to do with the main story line but they all have something to with food which links with the movie.

This film was a take off of other films, for example the main character was a take off of John Wayne, especially in a scene when he and another fellow have fight, until they literally both can’t walk, and they become best friends. Long continuos tracking shots are used to change between stories or scenes, i feel as though this gives a nice rhythm to the movie. I noticed alot of similarities to Monty Python, i though that every scene was set up as a comedy skit. It really worked well.

If i had to say something negative about the film it would have to be a particular scene half way through the movie when the Tampopo Gets a make over, to change scenes that put a sheet up over the lens then took it away to show the change, i thought it looked ugly and defiantly didn’t work, i also noticed a few scenes that were out of focus. But i still thoroughly enjoyed it and it defiantly opened my perspective on foreign films.

aksdj;apsdfjp[asfoajfdasfsdf thats just about all i got out of this film. Although it was a great film in so many different ways it still made no sense. Elisabeth Vogler (Liv Ullmann) is an actress who became mute in a play. Her doctor (Margaretha Krook) says that Elisabeth is mute by option, in a kind of sophisticated suicide, and decides to send Elisabeth to her house on the beach with the company of the nurse Alma (Bibi Andersson). While together, Alma initially worships the actress, opening her heart and secrets to her. Later, she feels betrayed, after reading a letter of Elisabeth and then she changes her personality to act like Elisabeth. This is where the film becomes very confusing. Its almost as though both the characters merge into one, showing a little of both their sides. Through out the entire film the camera is focused predominately on the two actors. I though that Liv played a great role of the muted actress, her expressions still made her character “loud.” Another plus to the film is the merge from a dull movie to a raunchy sex scene, where we see Alma expressing her deeps secrets. However, once weighing up the things i liked the things i didn’t the result is the movie was worth seeing but defiantly only once.

“The Da Vinci code” is a film obviously created from the hugely popular and very controversial novel by Dan Brown. This film has been created basically word for word or in other terms it accurately reinterprets the book. It doesn’t add any hollywood endings or try to add any dramatic changes in events. For this reason i liked the movie alot more than the book because i found that I i wasn’t as confused as I was after reading the book. It filled in the gaps.
I defently thought that the films strongest points were with its crew. I thought Tom Hanks really fitted the role of Robert Langdon extremely well. But for me the real star of this film was Paul Bettany, he played his role to perfection. After seeing him in Wimbledon i didn’t think he was capable of playing the role of Silas. However, I was wrong and he nailed it.
The film has been made with a grainy like feel to it which at first didn’t mind but as the film progressed i started to feel almost annoyed and sum what nauseous. This film is a very dark film and i found it to be quiet slow pased. I don’t know if this is a good thing but i feel as though it worked for me. It all depends on how you are feeling at the time you watch it i guess.
So in conclusion if you love the book then I think you will certainly enjoy the film.

The Battleship Potemkin is a 1925 silent film directed by Eisenstein. It is a fictional narrative film meant to glorify a real-life event that occurred in 1905, the Battleship Potemkin uprising, when the crew of a Russian battleship rebelled against their oppressive officers during the Tsarist regime. Potemkin has been called one of the most influential films of all time.
This film was huge in every sense, the props, the thousands of extras, the battle ships wars and the way they expressed emotion. The scene with the baby falling down the stairs was shocking to me, the fact that this baby just kept going down and didn’t fall or crash is nerve wreaking to watch.
This film was made and edited for the dole reason to produce the greatest emotional response, so that the viewer would fell sympathy for the rebellious sailors of the battleship Potemkin and hatred for their cruel overlords.

For its time this movie is excellent, the mount of time and organising gone into this film must of been huge, this is obvious in through the stairs scenes at the “odessa Steps”
I believe this film achieved its purpose and it is a huge credit to Eisenstein and his team, to be able to produce something of this caliber in this period of time is amazing.

Benchwarmers to me was hilarious, i didn’t expect it. I love most baseball films and this surprisingly was no different. This film is about 3 mates who are losers, but kind hearted all the same. This is where the film starts, a billionaire former “Geek” sees the boys helping his son and decides to start a tournament with these three guys to take on all the other teams and ultimately win the stadium he built so all the so called benchwarmers can have some where to play. The only issue that i had with the film was the fact that Ron Heder played Napoleon Dynamite all over again. However he did it well and it was funny. Anyway this film is great and defiantly worth seeing.

Bonnie and Clyde
I found this film very enjoyable and i can see why it was a huge success. The film is based on 2 famous bank robbers named Bonnie and Clyde. Who travel around in search of a robbing enough money to start a new life full of the riches. However, after recruiting a few new friends to come on their adventure their luck slowly starts to turn around for the worst. Which ultimately ends in their unhollywood deaths.

The main actor Clyde is in many ways the stereotypical macho man, but is he? At first you think he is the smooth criminal, but further into watching we realise that he isn’t what he was thought at first to be. He is scared about physical contact or more to the point he was scared of making love and he didn’t want any thing to do with it.
The technical side of the movie wasn’t all that great, especially considering that i noticed at least 4 miss edits were u see the characters skip or change position in one frame. HAHAHAHAHA it was funny to watch. And the scene when Bonnie meets up with her family and friends really pissed me off and annoyed the shit out of me. The colours were dull, there was no talking and it was all out of focus. I don’t no what the director was trying to achieve, but what ever it was it wasn’t done well.
However there was some nice cinematography. I especially liked the car chases, and the shoot out. I feel as though they were really captured well and gave the audience a good view of what was happening.

The only other thing that i thought was done not so well with this film was the repetition of getting chased, getting away, getting chased, getting away etc. You get the point.

Although had alot of negatives to write about, i still enjoyed the movie.