The Movie Doubt Essay

The Movie Doubt Essay.

There were a few changes that were made to make a smooth transition from stage to film, but there were many things that stayed the same. The plot of both versions was basically the same. The play and film centers on Father Flynn, Sister James, and Sister Aloysius. Sister Aloysius is convinced that Father Flynn has acted inappropriately around the male students at the school, and Sister James is the naive young teacher that wants to see the best in everyone and tries her hardest to believe that the allegations are not true.

The plot of both stories shows how Sister Aloysius tries to find out whether or not Father Flynn has been inappropriate with one boy in particular, Donald Muller, who also happens to be the only black student at the school. The play begins with Father Flynn delivering a sermon to his congregation. The topic of his sermon is doubt. He makes a compelling argument that not only does everyone go through periods of doubt about different things, but it is doubt that holds everyone and everything together.

His exact words were: “Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty.

When you are lost, you are not alone” (Shanley 6). There are many different topics that Father Flynn could have been talking about, and many people that he could have been speaking to directly. He could have been speaking to himself, about whether or not he is doing the right thing with Donald; he could have been speaking to Donald, about feelings of uncertainty or confusion that he may be having; or, he could have simply been preaching a sermon that he had done many times before, and it just so happened to fit in perfectly with the topic of the play and what Sister Aloysius was struggling with herself.

The movie version, however, begins the film at the school, and we see Father Flynn in his element with all of the students. There could have been any number of reasons why the film started this way. It could have begun that way to show Father Flynn in a more approachable manner, making him more of a normal teacher than the leader of the church. It also could have begun that way to immediately show the connection (however inappropriate or creepy) that he has with his students right away. He is seen alone with a male student, and he gives this student a toy to keep for himself.

This could have been done to show that there are going to be scenes in the film that will make the viewer question just how close this teacher and leader of the church really is to the male students. He is never seen being affectionate or even friendly to any female students, and I’m sure there was a reason for that, also. Another major difference that stuck out to me in the plots of both versions was the scene in the film in which Sister James sees Father Flynn placing Donald’s shirt in his locker.

This seems to me that the film director is trying his best to keep adding questionable scenes, in which one would be crazy not to automatically jump to an inappropriate conclusion. This scene was not in the original version. In the original play, it leaves a lot left to the imagination about what really happened between Father Flynn and Donald. In the film version, however, it seems that there are more than enough instances in which a normal person might assume that something is going on behind closed doors.

When scenes are added like the one above, it looks as though it is only there to make the viewer question his or her stance even more. The last major difference that I saw was how Father Flynn exited the story. In the play, the last image we have of him is speaking on the phone and requesting to speak to a bishop. We then learn from Sister Aloysius that she has “got him out,” (Shanley 57) and he has been transferred to another school. In the film, however, we see that Father Flynn is giving his last sermon at the church, and then he is allowed to say goodbye to his congregation.

The two different endings seem to suggest two different outcomes to me. In the play, is seems as though he has hurriedly left because he is guilty of the crime. He doesn’t have time to say anything to anyone, and he leaves as quickly as he can. When he is giving his goodbyes in the film, it seems as if he is being defiant in his departure. He wants to make sure that he leaves on a positive note, and he wants everyone to know that he has done nothing to be ashamed of, and maybe he hasn’t. To me, the quick exit is more of an acknowledgement of shame and guilt.

Some of the actions and motivations of the characters in the film version seemed slightly different from what I felt and observed when I read the play. For example, in the play, Father Flynn seems very self-assured and confident of his innocence and how he acts with his students. There are not any outward signs of affection for anyone, especially Donald, in the play. All of the allegations of their friendship gone awry are made because of what has happened in private. In the film, however, it was very surprising to see the added scene between Father Flynn and Donald in the hallway of the school.

Some of the male students were picking on Donald and being mean to him, and they knocked his books out of his hands. Sister James is then seen watching Father Flynn embrace Donald in the hallway in front of everyone, and then he helped him pick up his things. I could understand this scene happening for two reasons. On the one hand, maybe everything is innocent and Father Flynn is simply trying to help a student that has obviously been targeted for harassment just because he is different.

Father Flynn has already made it known that he has become friendly with the boy, only trying to help him navigate his way through the painful differences. He did not care how the hug looked; he was just trying to console the poor student. On the flip side, he could have hugged him because they have some kind of other relationship that is going on, and he cannot stop himself from being beside Donald and comforting him when he needs it the most.

I think that either way is meant to make the viewer try to form his or her opinion about what is really going on, but I was surprised that that particular scene was added. Another large difference between character actions and motivations involves the change from stage to screen of Sister James. In the play, Sister James is clearly a little naive and ignorant about what really goes on in the world. She is seen as quiet, reserved, and thrown off by constructive criticism. When Sister Aloysius speaks to her about the way that she is teaching, she seems to be at a loss for what to say, and even begins to cry.

I can understand that a new teacher is sensitive to how he or she is being perceived, but Sister James seems to be overly dramatic and delicate when it comes to criticism of any kind. It seems clear that her position in the play is one of wanting desperately to be on Father Flynn’s side. She wants Sister Aloysius to like her and respect her, but she is unable to conceive the thought that Father Flynn, a man of the cloth, would ever do anything as horrible as what Sister Aloysius is accusing him of.

Knowing all of these traits about her, it was odd to me that the scene was added to the film showing her reaction to Father Flynn placing the shirt in Donald’s locker. When Father Flynn sees that she has observed what he has done, she smiles at him in her normal, innocent, sweet smile. However, a few seconds later, we see her go to the locker, open it, and take the shirt out, with a deceptive look on her face. This completely goes against the actions that her character in the play would have taken. In the play, she would have simply willed herself to believe that she didn’t really see what she saw.

In the film, though, she boldly and brazenly walks over to the locker and does what she wants, with no hint of fear that Father Flynn or anyone else will see her do it. To me, this was completely out of character for her. In the play, she is much too cautious and timid to act out a bold move like that. The reactions to Father Flynn, however, were a little confusing and greatly differed. Donald Muller and several other boys in the gym class all reacted positively to him. They laughed at all of his jokes, and all seemed to want to be around him and cut up with him.

There were a couple of boys, however, that seemed to have disdain towards him. In the beginning of the film, there was one male student that had a severe reaction when Father Flynn grabbed his arm. He immediately pulled back and had a disgusted look on his face. Unfortunately for Father Flynn, Sister Aloysius saw this and later used it as ammunition towards him. At the end of the film, after it was revealed that Father Flynn was leaving the church, one male student is seen smiling smugly, hinting that there may be some reason as to why he is so pleased to see him leave.

These reactions that some male students had towards Father Flynn was enough to make me lean more to the fact that he probably did what he was accused of doing. This was a question that I had when watching the film, and the constant visual of the long fingernails seemed to me to be pointing to a larger acknowledgement. Overall, I think that any changes that were made to the play were important to the film, and there were practical reasons for making the changes. The film stayed true to the themes that it represented, and I think that it stayed true to the bigger meaning behind it.

The Movie Doubt Essay

Why We Crave Horror Movies Essay

Why We Crave Horror Movies Essay.

As we analyze Stephen King’s essay “Why We Crave Horror Movies,” we come across his essential reasons as to what gives us the ambition and motivation to insist watching horror movies. In a way Stephen King is correct; one way or another we all are mentally ill to a point. No one is perfect, and we all do strange things. Some people are perfectionists when it comes to how they do things; some have a habit of talking to themselves, and others just do strange things like pet peeves without even realizing it.

We see horror movies for the same reasons we ride roller coasters: for the adrenaline rush, the escape of reality, and the ability to show our fears to the people around us. Watching horror movies helps us control the anti-social instincts we all have. We watch horror movies to give us a sense of adventure, take us away from reality, and to have a reason for our feelings to be easily expressed within each other.

It is part of our human nature to constantly seek adventure. In some ways being scared can be someone’s adventure. We crave the thrill and anticipation of what is to happen next.

Horror movies are similar to riding a roller coaster. We dare ourselves to ride roller coasters and watch movies that we know will freak us out, but after have the urge to do it all over again. One would think that if something scared us the first time, we would not want to do it again. But because this is our natural instinct, we crave it even more. The adrenaline rush that comes over us, gives an anticipating reaction in which it makes us wonder what is to happen next. Whether people know if they are scared or not while experiencing the fear factor, it seems like a scream is unavoidable.

This scream proves that we have reached our final stage of thrill and excitement. It proves that we have the strength in releasing such tension by the cause of fear. For some people horror movies are an escape from the reality of their hectic life. They help us build a different perspective in our imagination. It’s becoming more commonly accepted to get lost in a TV show or a movie just to give our minds a little vacation from the everyday life. For the fact that our lives are so occupied with multiple duties and responsibilities, a hange in focus is sometimes necessary to keep us sane.

In this case, it gives us another reason as to why we look forward to horror movies. For example, it is easy to compare an awful day at the job with a gruesome scene from a horror movie because it provides us the sufficient energy to release a great sense of negativity during this moment. Yes, of course we have aggressive anger feelings at times, but I must admit that horror movies are ways of expressing and possibly giving opportunity in acting out these emotions, behaviors, and fantasies.

However, this particular movie genre can roughly influence into entering a world of disorder and appalling conduct making us create violence within society. As a last note, we all know that watching horror movies with a significant other has its advantages, such as cuddling. For some reason such movies help to deepen a connection in which each person becomes protective, caring, and vulnerable. To speak for myself, I always prefer going to a movie with my partner especially a horror film, for the fact that these same reasons occur to us.

Being close to one another seems to create a unique bond where we can see how vulnerable we are in reality. As I observe people around me, I can tell cuddling is a fact in why we crave horror movies. We all know that in reality we never want anything horrific to happen to us; but because we don’t have much experience in tragedy besides a terrorist attack, a car accident, a weather disaster, or war for those who fight for our country, we are always curious on how to live this experience and we know exactly how to do so.

Horror movies are like a new addiction, we just can’t get enough of them. I go to horror movies knowing that I will get freaked out and be scared hiding behind my hands, but I still go just for the thrill of it. We watch movies that freak us out, do crazy stunts, and do things that could end with us giving our lives just for the thrill of it. Stephen King is right, we are all mentally ill, but everyone is, so it makes it normal for us.

To a certain point we all have a little insanity inside of us, no matter how normal we think we are. As King says we watch horror movies to prove that we’re not afraid; to feel essentially “normal”; and to have fun. Some may think different and watch horror films to seek adventure; escape reality; and to just have a reason to cuddle. Whatever the reason may be that people watch horror films, it is most likely going to remain a trend in culture.

Why We Crave Horror Movies Essay

Billy Elliot Essay

Billy Elliot Essay.

Explain why the idea was memorable in the text(s) as a whole, supporting your points with examples of visual and/or oral language features. ‘Billy Elliot’ is a film directed by Stephen Daldry that tells of a twelve year old boy called Billy. Raised in a working class family, Billy had always possessed a love for dancing. However, set during 1984 in the small mining town of Everington, his dream of becoming a ballet dancer proves to be difficult. His father, Jacky and brother, Tony are also involved in the miners’ strike, which puts the family in financial difficulties.

The main idea of this film is to pursue your dream and not to give up when there are obstacles in the way. Daldry uses Billy’s story to portray this as a memorable idea for the audience. At the beginning of the movie, Billy attends boxing classes at the local gymnasium. However, we see that Billy isn’t truly interested in boxing.

One day when Billy stays behind at the gym, he becomes intrigued by the ballet classes held by Mrs Wilkinson. Rather than attending boxing classes, Billy begins to attend the ballet classes instead. As he spends more time learning ballet, Billy’s determination is also revealed.

An example of this is the cross-cutting technique used to show Billy practising his pirouette. The cross cutting involves several different scenes of Billy practising to get his pirouette right. Some scenes are of him in his small bathroom and some are of him losing his patience. This shows Billy’s perseverance and determination as a dancer, a dancer that will keep practising despite not having enough space at home. Other than his determination, his passion for ballet dancing is also further revealed as Billy tries to extend himself as a ballet dancer.

Daldry uses this montage to show the audience that you can get better at something with practise, even without the proper tools or environment that you are in. This was also memorable because the audience can be inspired by Billy’s determination to practise at what you love. In the film, Billy’s major obstacle is the opinion of the small mining community he lives in. Many of the people in his town believe that ballet is a feminine dance and if a male were to do ballet then he must be a ‘poof’ (homosexual).

His own father and brother also feel this way about him doing ballet. An example of the public’s opinion was right after Billy successfully completed a pirouette. Mr Braithwaite, pianist at his ballet class, tells Billy quietly, ‘You look like a right wanker if you ask me, son’. In this dialogue, Mr Braithwaite represents the public’s opinion on a male ballet dancer.

Another example is Jacky’s opinion on him doing ballet, ‘Lads do boxin’ or wrestlin’ or football… not figgin’ ballet! This reveals Billy’s major barrier to his dream because he needs to overcome the community’s opinion and most importantly his father’s opinion until he can become a ballet dancer. Billy eventually overcomes this; however, this obstacle did help make the main idea memorable. Facing public opinions is something the audience can often relate to, and Billy’s story allows the audience to feel sympathetic towards him. Despite obstacles in his way; financial difficulties and public opinion, Billy eventually gets admitted into the Royal Ballet School.

The ending is set fifteen years in advance where the audience sees Jacky and Tony travelling to London to attend a ballet concert of Swan Lake. As we see the older Billy limbering up, suspense builds as the audience are only shown the backs and limbs of older Billy. When Billy runs on to the stage performing a grand jete a freeze frame is used to capture the perfected finesse. The freeze frame effectively revealed to the audience Billy’s physique, skill and confidence the he has achieved over the past fifteen years.

Daldry uses this as the ending to show the audience that reward can be sown after determination and training. The freeze frame itself was a memorable conclusion to the film and Billy’s story, however it also serves as a memorable reminder to the audience that success can be earned with hard work and perseverance. Therefore, to conclude, Daldry has used techniques such as cross cutting, dialogue and freeze frame to help convey a memorable idea. The main idea of following your dream and overcoming obstacles.

You may also be interested in the following: billy elliot essay

Billy Elliot Essay

Finding Nemo Essay

Finding Nemo Essay.

When fearing the unknown, one can only hide away from the world trusting no one but one’s self, but in order to overcome fear, on must learn to trust in themselves and those around them. In Disney’s Pixar film Finding Nemo, a clown fish named Marlin sets out on a journey to find his son Nemo who was captured. Through the journey, Marlin learns to trust in those around him instead of living in fear of the unknown. With overcoming obstacles and fighting the ocean, Marlin learns what it means to be a part of the world as an adult and as a father instead of fearing the world around him (North).

In Finding Nemo, Marlin is ready for a wonderful life with his wife and their hundreds of children ready to be born. He had found the perfect home as it was like a Garden of Eden for him. But happiness did not last long. Tragedy hit Marlin as his entire family was killed as fast as Zeus’s striking bolt, yet a survivor had lived the attack.

Little Nemo was born with a handicap of a smaller fin due to an injury from the tragic attack. Due to the terrible experience, Marlin became wary of the world, cautious of every corner at all times. He took precautions of every little thing.

Being over protection of Nemo became an understatement. “Marlin doesn’t believe that Nemo can do much of his own because of his somewhat deformed fin” (reelclassrooms). Marlin seems to put his entire life around Nemo, protecting and every possible way as if he were a baby. Though Marlin’s actions are extreme, one can see that Marlin takes caution in order to keep his son safe and alive. Being traumatized and losing almost everything affected Marlin to not trust the things around him, and fear the unknown.

It was through this tragic event that caused Marlin to hide in the shadows in fear. Out of defiance of his father, Nemo strays away from the reef and gets captured by a fisherman; eventually put into a tank with other fish at the diver’s dentist’s office” (reelclassrooms). With his taken son, Marlin sets out to cross the ocean in order to find Nemo. As his journey begins, Marlin meets Dory who suffers from short term memory loss. Through he becomes impatient with Dory; he learns to befriend her and to trust her. Through their journey together, they experience several obstacles in which tests Marlin’s fear of the unknown.

When the two were faced between going through a dark trench and going up above, Marlin did not choose to trust Dory because of her memories and decides to follow his own way causing them to battle a field of jellyfish. When the two were swallowed by a whale that they had asked for directions to Sydney, Marlin believed they were going to be eating, fearing and not trusting the whale that was in fact helping them. When the whale had told them to go down his throat, Dory had trusted the whale. In this scene, Marlin questions her how she knew it was going to be okay and how does she know if nothing bad would happen?

Dory replies with that she did not know (Finding Nemo). The scene signifies Marlin’s transition in character. Because of this incident, Marlin learns not only to trust Dory but also to trust more of those around him and to take chances, slowing breaking through the fear of the unknown. A significant scene in the film was Marlin’s encounter with Crush, a sea turtle who had rescued him and Dory who had fell unconscious from the jellyfish field. With his encounter with Crush, he learns that he needs to trust his son; to live life and to just experience what comes to him.

He learns that baby turtles are left alone to come back to the sea and find their way home on their own and is shocked that Crush had no concern or fear for his son’s lonesome journey without protection, but Crush had trusted his son and but his faith on him. Marlin sees that they do not fear the world, but embrace it. It is with this encounter that Marlin grows to accept the world, and becomes more determined to find his son so that he can “mend their broken relationship” (reelsclassroom). When Marlin is finally reunited with his son Nemo, he faces an obstacle which tests his fear of losing his son again and urge in protecting him.

Dory is caught in a fishing boat’s large net along with hundreds of other fish. Nemo, knowing in how to save Dory and the school of fish, swims into the net but is stopped by Marlin. Nemo tells his father to trust him. Through the experiences Marlin had faced during his journey, he finally learns to trust his son to go on his own for the first time. In this suspenseful, emotional scene, Marlin finally learns to trust his son and the world, to not live in fear and to face the unknown along side with his son Nemo and Dory.

You may also be interested in the following: finding nemo essay

Finding Nemo Essay

How Is Dramatic Meaning Created in the Opening Scene of Forrest gump Essay

How Is Dramatic Meaning Created in the Opening Scene of Forrest gump Essay.

Academy Awards, 1995 Golden Globe Awards, 1995 MTVMovie Awards, 1995 People? s Choice Awards, 2005 American Film Institute Awards andvarious other ones. It was an adaption of a novel of the same name, by Winston Groom. Robert Zemeckis was the director of the movie, and he made great decisions about thecamera techniques to be used in each scene. In 1996, a restaurant with the name? Bubba Gump? was open in honour of the movie, and surprisingly there is one in thePeak Galleria in Hong Kong! The opening scene of the movie is filmed very beautifully, especially with thefeather floating in the air, because it creates the mood of the whole piece.

Also, themusic and sounds chosen to accompany the opening scene, contributes to the tone of the entire movie. From right the beginning of the film, the feather is already floating around in theair. This white feather is a symbolic object that counts as a sign. The whiteness of itseems to show the purity and innocence Forrest has, and his enthusiastic personality,where he is determined to do whatever it takes to fulfill his own, and his friends andfamilies? dreams.

It also seem to symbolize the famous quote that his mom always said,? Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you? e gonna get.? With thefeather floating to random places, e. g. on top of cars, on people? s shoulders, on thefloor? It shows how random life can be, and how no one ever knows what lies in theirpath of life, what obstacles they will have to overcome, and what their destiny is. A very interesting effect the feather is shot from in the opening scene is that it isa extreme long shot of different parts of the town, allowing the audience to adapt thesetting of the film into their minds, whilst the feather is shot from multiple angles,sometimes close up, and sometimes using medium shots.

With the words and the townbackground, the feather interestingly, is still the focal point of the whole shot, andunintentionally, your eyes follow wherever it is going even when the background ischanged drastically. When the feather is shot in the sky, it is from a low angle, which shows theimportance of it as a sign, so it feels as if the feather is superior to the audience, whoare inferior in this point of the film. There are also several shots of the feather floatingabove the forest with lots of greenery; the colours really contrast, with the white on thegreen, which also helps draw the audience? attention to the tiny white feather in theforeground.

The two minutes with the feather as the focal point of the shots are shotfrom different distances and various techniques. Sometimes, the feather is close up, andcomparing it with the size of the buildings in the background, it almost seems bigger. During the whole process of introducing the feather and the symbolism behind it, thecamera technique used is track, because the camera just follows wherever the feathergoes. When the feather lands on a man? s shoulder and on the car, a medium shot isused, and its shot from a high angle.

Normally, it is when a low angle is used that the audience feels inferior, but in this situation, the feather still seems somewhat superior,and looking down at it, feels like the audience is looking at the whole theory of life usinga different point of view. With various examples of the feather landing on differentplaces, it shows how many unexpected things could happen in life, and no one knowswhat their destiny will be. After floating for a long time in the wind, the feather finally ends up on theground next to Forrest Gump’s shoe and stops moving.

A close up of the shoe along withthe feather is taken, which emphasizes once again, the importance of the feather, andthe shoe as well. So far, the camera technique used is still tracking. The shoe is also asign because it shows how Forrest has managed to overcome many obstaclesthroughout life, to be in the position he is now. The shoe is significant, because as achild, Forrest had a problem with his spine, so he couldn? t walk properly.

He starts running and breaks his leg braces, and through all thepain and suffering, manages to start running, and learns that his legs are functional. Soespecially since his shoes are dirty in the shot, it portrays that he has worked very hardand overcame many obstacles wearing those shoes. Also, Forrest states that his motheralways says ? Shoes can tell a lot about a person. Where they go. Where they havebeen.? The close up continues on when Forrest picks up the feather with his hand, andduring that instance, a tilt is used where the audience looks at Forrest from his feet upto his head.

This is a great way to introduce the character. Whilst Forrest examining thefeather, the audience sees just the top half of his body, which means that a mediumshot was used. It is effective to use a medium shot for this part of the film, because theaudience should really focus on the facial expression on Forrest? s face to see what hefeels about the feather. The medium shot continues to be in use when Forrest placesthe feather in his suitcase. A track is used to show Forrest using a medium shot once again afterwards, toshow him staring into the difference, this quickly cuts into a long shot of him still lookinginto the distance.

A sense of mystery is created because the audience members want tofind out what is so interesting that he keeps on staring at. Then, a bus comes along andblocks the view of Forrest, and the connection between the audience and Forrest isbroken. The camera remains still until the woman who comes off the bus sits on thebench next to Forrest. A zoom is used here, which is quite effective, because essentially,the audience really wants to know what will happen between Forrest and this woman. Most likely, they will begin chatting, which is why there is a zoom used to basically seewhat will happen.

After a bit of chatting between the two, the camera quickly zoomsinto a close up of Forrest? s face. This is a very important and beneficial shot, because itgradually slips into the next scene here. Where Forrest starts squinting his eyes? Overall, a variety of camera movements, angles and distances are used in theopening scene of the well ? known film Forrest Gump. The main sign is the feather,which is in nearly the whole of the opening scene. The significance of it is shown withthe comparison to Forrest? s mothers? theory of life.

How Is Dramatic Meaning Created in the Opening Scene of Forrest gump Essay

Movie “The Blind Side” Essay

Movie “The Blind Side” Essay.

I have selected the movie; “The Blind Side”, it is the true story of Michael Oher, a homeless teenager who was able to overcome great obstacles in order to become a first round draft pick in the NFL. Michael Oher had a rough childhood as he didn’t know his father and his mother was addicted to drugs. He was in and out of foster homes and at times living on the street. The football coach at Wingate, a private school, saw football potential in Michael and got him admitted into the prestigious school.

However, he had learning disabilities and still did not have a permanent home. Leigh Anne Tuohy, the mother of a Wingate student, and wife of the owner of several Taco Bell restaurants, finds out about Michael’s predicament and invites him to stay the night at their home.

Once Michael is in the Tuohy home, a close relationship develops between him and the Tuohys. The one night stay turns into a permanent living situation for Oher.

Leigh Anne makes it her personal mission to make sure Michael has everything he needs emotionally and academically to graduate from high school and to get admitted to Ole Miss. After a successful college football campaign, Oher was drafted by the Baltimore Ravens in the first round in 2009, thus fulfilling his dream. This movie has it all. As you watch it, you experience the emotions of both sadness and joy, as you watch this young man go from being homeless to being drafted in the first round of the 2009 NFL draft.

Movie “The Blind Side” Essay

Analysis of Sociologically Relevant Film: Forrest Gump Essay

Analysis of Sociologically Relevant Film: Forrest Gump Essay.

“The world will never be the same once you’ve seen it through the eyes of…” Forrest Gump: a film chronicling the life of a mentally challenged man present during three of the most distinctive and dynamic decades in American history. While on the surface lies a heartwarming and inspirational story, the underlying narrative tends to explore progression of American society while depoliticizing history. Throughout the film Forrest is directly involved in major events of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, yet he never shows any initiative of his own.

What is the filmmaker trying to insinuate?

Sociological analysis

An understanding of Forrest’s background in an important and characterizing element in the film. Disadvantaged by a terrible spine condition and a low IQ, Forrest struggles through childhood in small-minded Greenbow, Alabama. Due to his mental disabilities, Forrest becomes the victim of academic discrimination, which his mother fights desperately to resolve. “He might be a bit on the slow side, but my boy Forrest is going to get the same opportunities as everyone else,” she stated to the principal of Greenbow County Central School.

“He’s not going to some special school to learn to how to re-tread tires.” (Gump 1995) Forrest’s mother was determined. Taking advantage of this, the principal coerced Forrest’s mother into trading a sexual favor for enrollment in school. In addition to these unsettling events, Forrest finds himself tormented and isolated by neighborhood children and townspeople who seem incapable of treating him with anything but reproach and disdain.

Forrest was also an active part of many important events, including protests lead by George Wallace against desegregation, the Vietnam War, the Ping Pong Diplomacy period, anti-war activism lead by Abbie Hoffman, Black Panther Party meetings, and the Watergate scandal. It would be reasonable to say that being part of such important events and would make him vulnerable to the social forces of the times, yet his lack of critical thought as a result of low intelligence seemed to indicate the complete opposite– he remained wholly oblivious and ignorant of their significance.

During George Wallace’s “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” protest, Forrest stands curiously in the background, more interested in his surroundings rather than the actual protest. During the Vietnam War, Forrest never questions the morality or the agenda of the U.S. government, and receives the Congressional Medal of Honor for his efforts. His entire experience during the Vietnam War can be summed up into one conversation between him and the Drill Sergeant: “Gump! What’s your sole purpose in this Army?” “To do whatever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!” (Gump 1995) Still, the most dismaying portion of impassive responses glorified in this film can be contributed to Forrest’s careless involvement in the anti-Vietnam War rally lead by Abbie Hoffman. He was entirely clueless as to the purpose of the anti-war movements. His view of Abbie Hoffman’s role? “There was this man, giving a little talk… And every time he said the “F” word, people, for some reason, well, they’d cheer.”

Though the focus of the film is directed towards Forrest Gump, the effects of social forces are most often expressed and implied through Jenny Curran. Forrest’s generally unobservant nature contrasts harshly with Jenny’s forthright and independent character. Without Jenny, we would have a collectively unrealistic and uncertain portrayal of many occurrences that contributed to the structure of today’s society. Unlike Forrest, Jenny was consciously and intentionally involved in the counterculture movements of the 60’s, as she is seen trailing the countryside with fellow “hippies,” participating in anti-war movements, and secretly involving herself in Black Panther Party meetings. Before Jenny sets off on what turns out to be downward spiral towards debasement, she speaks to Forrest of her motives. “…I want to reach people on a personal level. I want to be able to say things, just one-to-one.” (Gump 1995) However, Jenny’s plans for a better society are brought to a staggering halt when Jenny develops a fatal disease stemming from precarious drug use.

Conclusion

Although Tom Hanks (Star in Forrest Gump) affirms that the film was “non-political and thus non-judgmental,” the previous examples show implications otherwise. Though the film does take a stand against disability discrimination by shedding some light on the difficulties that accompany being handicap during a callous time in American history, it’s motives were generally ambiguous and unclear. Based on the filmmakers unattractive outlook on counterculturalism, his lack of discretion when touching on issues like desegregation and independence, as well as his insensitive approach to the deaths of activists, we can arrive at the following conclusion: the harrowing experiences exposed in this film can be easily discarded as something warranted only by devoted individuals who attempt to foster humanity.

Analysis of Sociologically Relevant Film: Forrest Gump Essay

“How does Alfred Hitchcock explore the duality of human nature in the film Psycho?” Essay

“How does Alfred Hitchcock explore the duality of human nature in the film Psycho?” Essay.

Alfred Hitchcock uses many ways to explore the duality of human nature in his films, especially in the 1960 horror thriller Psycho. The duality of human nature represents our inner self, aspects that are mainly opposites, the light showing good, the dark showing evil, the natural and the unnatural, are just some examples of human nature. Hitchcock explored the duality of human nature using ways such as lighting, dialogue, camera angles, music, comparing and contrasting what different characters would do when facing the same problem and individuation.

According to Carl Jung, individuation is when a person confronts they inner side (usually the dark, negative and evil side). He believed that successful individuation meant that a person not only confronted their dark side, but conquered it as well and that people needed to recognise and confront the negative aspects of their personality or their “dark” side would destroy the person. This means that inside everyone, there is a darker side, an evil and bad side, that must be confronted, or it will ruin you.

By looking at the two main characters Norman and Marion, and two minor characters, Sam and Lila, we can see the duality of human nature.

Both Marion and Norman are being confronted with their inner dark self, yet, Marion conquers her dark side, while Norman lets it take over his life. Sam and Lila, however, are mostly seen as good and “natural”. There are many key scenes throughout the movie Physco, which explore the duality of human nature. Some of these scenes include the opening scene, the scene in which Marion is driving away after taking the money and the parlour scene. The blackness of Psycho’s opening credits sequence symbolizes death and the opening scene of Psycho starts with a pan view of the cityscape of Arizona.

The shot, from a wide pan into a dark bedroom, leads the viewer into a dark, secretive space, showing the viewer immediately that we will witness something secretive and dark occurring during the film. The viewer also knows that the theme of hiding from something is established, as the two are hiding their affair, and Sam is hiding, or shying away, from marriage to Marion. We learn that the two have money problems, from Sam, who says, “I sweat to pay off my father’s debts and he’s in his grave. I sweat to pay my

ex-wife alimony, and she’s living on the other side of the world somewhere”, and “A couple of years and my debts will be paid off, and if she ever remarries the alimony stops. ” Marion knows the only problem between the two of them is money, and that if it wasn’t for money, the two could be together. It is at this time, that Marion begins to confront her inner self, the need for more money, so she herself can marry Sam, and not have to worry about her job. When Marion returns to work after her “lunch hour” she complains of a headache.

When Marion’ s boss asks her to deposit $40,000 for him, “I don’t even want it in the office over the weekend. Put it in the safe deposit box in the bank and we’ll get him to give us a check on Monday instead… ” Marion sees this as a chance for her to finally be with Sam and solve all her financial problems. Behind Marion’s desk are paintings of sprawling lands, including images of trees, woods and natural landscape. These images juxtapose her isolation and show her desires for freedom. The scene in which Marion is driving away from Phoenix is also a key scene in which Hitchcock explores the duality of human nature.

We see Marion driving away, after she leaves Phoenix and after she meets with the Police Officer, trades her car, and as she does so, the audience sees how uneasy she feels, the tension in her expressions, and we hear the imaginary voices she is hearing in her head, about what may be happening because she has taken the $40,000. Marion is thinking about what the consequences of her “theft” were, and what is happening back in Phoenix. The audience hears the voices in Marion’s head, the voices of Marion’s boss, her sister, what Marion is thinking. The audience is put into Marion’s mind.

We feel the tension when she is being interrogated by the Police Officer and in a way, we feel relieved when she is let off, even though what she did was morally wrong. In many places in this scene, we are put into the point of view from Marion’s perspective, which brings duality of human nature not only to her, but to us as well, as we feel like WE are in the scene. Hitchcock does this as he wants the audience to think, what they would do if we were Marion’s position, which questions our own duality. Marion, while she is driving away with the stolen money, has currently let her dark, inner side take over her.

She is taking advantage of her boss’s trust in her and is doing this out of personally greed and wealth. Here, Hitchcock is showing us what giving in to your inner dark side can result in. One of the major key scenes in Psycho that shows how Hitchcock explored the duality of human nature is the parlor scene, between Marion and Norman. At the start of the scene, after Norman returns from the house with milk and food, they converse briefly outside on the porch, and we see a reflection of Norman on the window. This shows his other side, his “mother” side, which has just been “lit” in him.

The framings of Norman and Marion are unnatural. She is roundly lit, while he is being lit at angles and relatively more dim than Marion. He is a man, offering milk to a woman, and the openness he shows towards her symbolize the fact that he has chosen her as his next victim. However, it is not till they go into the actual parlor that Hitchcock explores the duality of human nature even more. The parlor room is quite small, which forces Marion and Norman to sit quite closely to each other. Even though they are both in the same room, the lighting the two receive is considerably different.

Marion sits near a lamp, and her frame looks more lit, and well-rounded, giving her a glowing and warm feeling, as if she is good and positive. It appears to seem that she is redeeming herself from what bad she did before. Norman, however, has a frame with many shadows- a symbol of darkness and evilness and the lighting on him seems both angular and irregular, and unlike Marion, we cannot see the whole of Normans face, like as if Norman is hiding something. Also, while Marion looks like she is at total ease, Norman seems to be irregular and the atmospheres around him seems to be evil and dark.

During almost the whole scene, Norman’s left side of his face is the only side that’s visible, while we can see the whole of Marion’s face. While both characters do not look to out of place in they individual frames, when they are put side by side, there is a clear contrast between Marion and Norman. Marion, in light colored clothing, seems to represent goodness and normalness, while Norman, in dark colored clothing, seems to represent evil, darkness, and a sense of abnormality. Here, we see very, very clearly the duality of human nature.

Marion symbolizing the good, and Norman symbolizing the bad. But there is even more to this scene that adds onto the duality of human nature. We learn that Norman has a hobby for stuffing birds, and we see them, around the walls of the parlor, the camera often using a low angle shot to capture them. They seem to look over what is going on, and as they appear above Norman, look as though they are overpowering him, making his decisions and such. This shows that while Marion is trying to conquer her inner side, Norman has already let it conquer him.

Norman asks Marion “What are you running away from? ” and Marion seems shocked that he would ask. But when Norman says, “No. People never run away from anything. The rain didn’t last long, did it. You know what I think? I think that we’re all in our private traps–clamped in them. And none of us can ever get out. We–we scratch and claw, but only at the air–only at each other. And for all of it, we never budge an inch”, Marion begins to realize that she needs to go back and get out of her “trap” instead of trying to run away from it.

We also find out that Norman himself is also in a trap, but he says, “I was born in mine. I don’t mind it anymore”, it shows us that Norman has not been able to conquer his inner side and has let it conquer him. Unlike Norman though, Marion does conquer her inner dark self and we know this when she says, “I’m very tired. And I have a long drive tomorrow–all the way back to Phoenix”, “I stepped into a private trap back there and I’d like to go back and try to pull myself out of it before it’s too late for me too.

” This again emphasises the point that Marion is the good and natural side while Norman is the dark, evil and unnatural side. So by just looking at some of these key scenes in the film Psycho, we know that Alfred Hitchcock used many ways to explore the duality of human nature. He used lighting to bring some characters into “good light” and show the “goodness” in some and the “darkness” in others. He also used camera angles, the show the sense of normality in some and abnormality in others, making them natural or unnatural.

What different characters said also explored the duality of human nature, as the dialogue was very important, as it gave us an inside view to what the characters were thinking as well as what they said. Individuation- confronting and conquering your inner dark side, also explores the duality of human nature. Comparing and contrasting characters was another way Hitchcock explored the duality of human nature as he compared the good characters to the bad, and what different characters would do under the same problem. So, it is clear to see, that Hitchcock used many successful ways to explore the duality of human nature in the film Psycho.

“How does Alfred Hitchcock explore the duality of human nature in the film Psycho?” Essay

Unique Characteristics of Soviet Montage Essay

Unique Characteristics of Soviet Montage Essay.

Unlike Montage where by a combination series of short shots are edited into a sequence to condense space, time, and information, Soviet Montage on the other hand is a style of filmmaking that is evolved to immerse the audience in a story and disguise technique was turned upside down in order to create the opposite emotional effect to bring the audience to the edge of their seat, and in the case of the Odessa Steps sequence, to push the viewer towards a feeling of vertigo.

In a simpler form, Soviet Montage combination series of short shots are edited into a sequence to create symbolic meaning. One main characteristic of Soviet Montage films is the downplaying of individual characters in the centre of attention whereby single characters are shown as members of different social classes and are representing a general type or class imitating Marxist Concept which believe more on society rather than individual .For Instance, in Eisenstein’s Strike there is only one character named individually in the entire film.

This proves the theory portraying collectivism rather individualism to propagate how united are the people against whatever political climate in Russia. The central aspect of Soviet Montage style was the area of editing. Cuts should stimulate the spectator. In opposition to continuity editing Montage cutting often created either overlapping or elliptical temporal relations. Elliptical cutting creates the opposite effect. A part of an action is left out, so the event takes less time than it would in reality. Elliptical editing was often used in the form of the jump cut. For instance, in Strike, Eisenstein cuts from a police officer to a butcher who kills an animal in the form of a jump cut. This is to indicate the butcher not being part of the story but should be able to create or make the viewer think about the relation and come to a conclusion as if the workers were slaughtered like animals in reality.

5 Methods of Montage:

1. Metric Montage – The editing work is done according to a specific number of frames, follows by cutting to the subsequent shot regardless of the event within the image. This is done to draw out the fundamental response of the audience. 2. Rhythmic Montage – this is done through cutting based on continuity, producing visual continuity from edit to edit. A very fine example of Rhythmic montage is from II Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo where the protagonist and the two other antagonists face each other in a three-way duel. 3. Tonal Montage – This uses the emotional meaning of the shots, to emphasize a response from the audience in a more complicated manner than Metric or Rhythmic Montage. For instance, a sleeping baby would express his or her calmness and relaxation. The prime example for this montage method from Eisenstein’s The Battleship Potemkin, where audience can witness the death of a revolutionary sailor Vakulinchuk.

4. Overtonal Montage – it is a collection of Metric, Rhythmic and Tonal Montage to create its effect on the audience for a more complex effect. It is best shown in a film called Pudovkin’s Mother, where the men are seen as workers walking towards a protestation at their own factory and later in movie, the protagonist uses ice to escape. 5. Intellectual Montage – it is used as a bridge to connect and create meaning completely outside the depiction, unlike continuity editing, where images are created in a smooth space or time. In general, ‘intellectual montage’ is when the image is not represented by a particular idea. Basically, it uses shots which, combined, emphasize an intellectual meaning. The effect is shown through conflict such as juxtapose shots that have no direct relationship.

The best example for Intellectual Montage is from a film called Strike. In this film, cut of shots include striking workers being assaulted and a bull being butchered. This is done as metaphor to show how workers are being treated like cattle. The butcher is here a nondiegetic element. Anything that is part of the film story world is diegetic. A nondiegetic element exists outside the story world. There is no connection between the slaughters of the animal. The use of such nondiegetic shots was a total direct portrayal of Eisenstein’s theory on intellectual montage creating effects through conflict such as the juxtaposing of shots that have no direct connection as all.

It is also shown in a film called The Godfather, where killing scene was shown during the baptism of Michael’s nephew. The whole scene was to show the murder “baptize” Michael into a life of crime. Another example is from a film called Apocalypse Now, juxtaposing shot was used in the execution of Colonel Kurtz.

Another example of contemporary films adopting intellectual montage would be In Boogie Nights, Dirk Diggler announces at the conclusion of filming a pornographic scene that he can “do it again”. There is then a quick cut to a champagne bottle uncorking at a post-shoot party. This particular scene represents both ejaculation and Dirk’s celebratory initiation into the world of porn.

In a nutshell, Souviet Montage involves editing as a much more pronounced feature than in German Expressionism. It explores the ways in which each shot gained intensified meaning from its relationship to the shots deliberately placed before and after it. For Eisenstein it is in the tension (or conflict) between shots that meaning is created. Montage cinema demands that audiences continuously search for the meanings created by the juxtaposition of two shots and can be seen as alternative to the dominant continuity editing style of Hollywood cinema. Putting shots A and B together does not result in AB but in the emergence of X or Y – something new and larger than AB. This moved the theory of montage on from Kuleshov and Pudovkin who believed shots are like bricks in the way they construct a scene. Kuleshov and Pudovkin aimed at linkage rather than conflict

Soviet montage

“Following the Russian Revolution in October 1917, the new Soviet government faced the difficult task of controlling all sectors of life. Like other industries, the film production and distribution systems took years to build up a substantial output that could serve the aims of the new government. During World War I, there were a number of private production companies operating in Moscow and Petersburg. With most imports cut off, these companies did quite well making films for the domestic market. The most distinctive Russian films made during the mid-1910s were slow-paced melodramas that concentrated on bravura performances by actors playing characters caught in extremely emotional situations. Such films showcased the talents of Ivan Mozhukin and other popular stars and were aimed mainly at the large Russian audience, seldom being seen abroad. These film companies resisted the move made directly after the Revolution to nationalize all private property.

They simply refused to supply films to theaters operating under the control of the government. In July 1918, the government’s film subsection of the State Commission of Education put strict controls on the existing supplies of raw film stock. As a result, producers began hoarding their stock; the largest firms took all the equipment they could and fled to other countries. Some companies made films commissioned by the government, while hoping that the Reds would lose the Civil War and that things would return to pre-Revolutionary conditions.” [1] “These circumstances led the Bolshevik regime to develop policies designed to both reconstruct the national film industry, and train a new generation of film-makers. The Peoples Commissariat of Education, or Narkompros, was the government agency given responsibility for supervising the development of the arts and education within the Soviet Union, and, in August 1919, Lenin issued a decree which nationalised the film industry, and charged Narkompros with the responsibility of regulating ‘the entire photo and cinema trade and industry’.

That same year Narkompros established the Moscow State Film School, from which many of the most important montage film-makers would later emerge. A new genre of film-making which appeared during the civil war period was the agitka, or ‘small agitational works’. Single-reel agitka such as Za krasnoye znamya (For the Red Banner, 1919) were mainly directed at raising the morale of the Red Army, and drew on formats already developed within the prerevolutionary propaganda films which had appeared during the First World War. However, although the agitka were modest, straightforward propaganda pieces, they provided emerging filmmakers with experience of a new, and different form of film-making.

Films shot at the front had a documentary quality which distinguished them from more studio-bound, pre-revolutionary forms of film-making; whilst the imperative to complete films quickly led to the development of innovative editing, acting and other stylistic practices. The agitka film-makers also became actively involved in the fighting process, often filming in the midst of battle, and this degree of involvement was to breed a school of highly committed, politically engaged film-makers, which included Lev Kuleshov, Alexander Levitsky, Grigori Giber, Edward Tissé, Vladimir Kasyanov, Nikandr Turkin and Dziga Vertov.

One of the most portentous developments to occur within committed Soviet film-making in 1918 was the departure of the first ‘agit-train’. The mission of this particular train was to raise the morale of troops fighting to defeat the White Guard forces on the Eastern Front. To this end, the agit-train was equipped with a printing press, a troupe of actors, and a film crew headed by a cameraman later to become one of the most important within the Soviet cinema: Edward Tissé. Later agit-trains contained complete film-making systems, including laboratories and editing rooms, and this enabled films to be shot, processed, edited and projected at the front within a short space of time.” [2]

In the face of shortages of equipment and difficult living conditions, a few young filmmakers made tentative moves that would result in the development of a national cinema movement. “During the first half of the 1920s, when all these sweeping changes were revolutionizing the arts, a new generation of filmmakers was moving into the cinema. For them, the revolution was a crucial formative event partly because they were extraordinarily young. Indeed,Sergei Eisenstein was nicknamed “the old man” by his younger friends because he was all of twenty-six when he began his first feature film. Born in 1898, Eisenstein came from a middle-class family in Riga, Latvia. His education gave him fluency in Russian, English, German, and French. He recalled that, while on a visit to Paris at age 8, he saw a Melies film and became interested in the cinema.

Two years later he visited the circus and became similarly obsessed with this popular spectacle. Following his father’s wishes, he began studying engineering in 1915. Eisenstein participated in the revolution and during the civil war put his engineering skills to work building bridges. He was drawn to the arts, however, and during this same period he also decorated agit-trains and helped design many theatrical skits for the Red Army. The combination of engineering and artistic work seemed anything but contradictory in the era of Constructivism, and throughout his life Eisenstein likened the production of his films to the building of those bridges.

In 1920, at the end of the civil war, Eisenstein went to Moscow and joined the Proletkult Theater (short for Proletarian, or Workers’ Cultural Theater). There he designed and co-directed many plays. In 1921, Eisenstein (along with his friend, Sergei Yutkevich, another future Montage film director) enrolled in a theater workshop under the supervision of Meyerhold, whom he would always consider his mentor. In 1923, Eisenstein directed his first theatrical production, Enough Simplicity in Every Wise Man. Although the play was a nineteenthcentury farce, Eisenstein staged it as a circus. The actors dressed in clown costumes and performed in the acrobatic biomechanical style, walking on a tightrope above the audience or doing handstands as they spoke their lines.

Eisenstein also produced Dnevnik Glumova (Glumov’s Diary, 1923), a short film to be shown on a screen on the stage. At the same time that this play was performed, Eisenstein gained some early experience as a film editor: along with Esfir Shub (soon to become an important maker of compilation documentaries ), he reedited aGerman Expressionist film, Fritz Lang’s Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler, for Soviet release. Eisenstein always maintained that his move from the theater to film came in 1924, when he directed a production of playwright S.M. Tretyakov’s Gas Masks, not in a theater but in a real gas factory. According to Eisenstein, the contrast between the reality of the setting and the artifice of the drama was too great.

A few months later, he began work on Stachka (Strike, 1925) (released in early 1925) – a film set and shot in a factory. It was the first major film of the Montage movement, and Eisenstein went on to make three more important works in that style: Bronenosets Potyomkin (Battleship Potemkin),Oktyabr (October aka Ten Days That Shook the World in an abridged version), and Staroye i novoye (Old and New). Potemkin was extremely successful abroad, which gave Eisenstein and his colleagues considerable leeway for experimentation over the next few years. Many Montage films proved more popular abroad than in the USSR, where they were often accused of being too difficult for workers and peasants to understand.” [3]

“The oldest Montage director in years and experience was Lev Kuleshov, who had designed and directed films before the revolution and then taught at the State Film School. He was eighteen years old at the time of the Bolshevik uprising – the revolution was, in effect, his university (nearly all the major Soviet filmmakers were under twenty-five during the formative period of political upheaval) The year before, when he was seventeen, the young art student had landed a job as set designer with Evgeni Bauer. He also acted, completed directing a film after Bauer’s death, and directed one on his own. When the old film companies left Moscow, Kuleshov remained, casting his future with the revolution He worked on agit-trains and on agitkas, the films made for agit-train screenings. One of the founders of the Film School in Moscow, he formed the Kuleshov Workshop to work on cinematic theories and techniques.

In the workshop, Kuleshov developed his views on montage. He took the position that the material of cinema was the celluloid film strip pieces of film. Film art consisted of putting these pieces together to create, through montage and the spectator’s perception, a cinematic composition or idea. The legendary Kuleshov effect was an illustration of this principle.” [4] Kuleshov edited together a short film in which a shot of the expressionless face of Tsarist matinee idol Ivan Mosjoukine was alternated with various other shots (a plate of soup, a girl, a little girl’s coffin). The film was shown to an audience who believed that the expression on Mosjoukine’s face was different each time he appeared, depending on whether he was ‘looking at’ the plate of soup, the girl, or the coffin, showing an expression of hunger, desire or grief respectively.

Actually the footage of Mosjoukine was the same shot repeated over and over again. Vsevolod Pudovkin (who later claimed to have been the co-creator of the experiment) described in 1929 how: [the audience] raved about the acting… the heavy pensiveness of his mood over the forgotten soup, were touched and moved by the deep sorrow with which he looked on the dead child, and noted the lust with which he observed the woman. But we knew that in all three cases the face was exactly the same. The Kuleshov effect thus describes a phenomenon whereby shots acquire their meaning only in relation to other shots. Kuleshov’s own Soviet films were only mildly experimental in style, but his workshop produced two important Montage directors Vsevolod Pudovkin had intended to train as a chemist until he saw D.W. Griffith’s Intolerance in 1919. Convinced of the cinema’s importance, he soon joined Kuleshov’s workshop and trained as both an actor and a director.

His first feature film typified the Constructivist interest in the physical bases of psychological response; he made Mekhanika golovnogo mozga (Mechanics of the Brain), a documentary about Ivan Pavlov’s famous experiments on stimulus-response physiology. In 1926, Pudovkin (born in 1893) helped found the Montage movement with his first fiction feature, Mat (Mother). Within the USSR, Mother was the most popular of all Montage films. As a result, Pudovkin enjoyed the highest approval from the government of any of the movement’s directors, and he was able to keep up his experiments with Montage longer than any of the others – up until 1933. Another Kuleshov workshop member, Boris Barnet (born 1902) had studied painting and sculpture, and he trained as a boxer after the revolution. He acted in The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks and other mid-1920s films, and he also directed Dom na Trubnoy (The House on Trubnoya, 1928) and other Montage-style films.

The other important filmmaker who, along with Kuleshov, had started directing about the time of the revolution was Dziga Vertov (born 1896). During the mid-1910s, he wrote poetry and science fiction, composed what we now call musique concrete, and became influenced by the Cubo-Futurists.” [3] From 1916 to 1917, however, he studied medicine “until left medical school during the revolution to go into film work in Moscow He traveled on agit-trains and as a war correspondent, and put together newsreels and documentaries from available film footage. Where Kuleshov had gone from the agit-train experience through film school teaching to fiction filmmaking, and Eisenstein through theater to historical films, Vertov learned the creative importance of film editing and became a lifelong advocate of the documentary film.” [3] “In 1920, Vertov toured the south-western front on an agit-train which carried a print of his first, complete, edited film:October Revolution.

Whilst on the move, Vertov also shot new footage of events at the front, and, when he returned to Moscow, he edited this footage into a series of films which formed the basis of his Kinopravda (‘film truth’) newsreel series. The Kinopravda both addressed contemporary political issues, and continued the exploration of filmform which had arisen from the work of those involved with the agitka. This provided Vertov with the theoretical and practical foundation for the development of his first film manifesto: ‘Kinoki: Perevoret’ (Kinoks: A Revolution), which was published by Mayakovsky, Nikolai Aseyev and Osip Brik in Lefin 1923. However, Vertov’s manifesto, in which he went so far as to declaim that “what we have so far done in the cinema is 100 per cent mistaken”, displayed a degree of avant-gardism which was soon to bring him into conflict with the Soviet authorities. That conflict first emerged in a series of disagreements which took place between Vertov and officials within Goskino, the successor body to the Moscow Cinema Council, which had been established in 1922.

These problems eventually led Vertov to leave Moscow, and work with VUFKU, the pan-Ukrainian film production unit. Here, away from the constraints of the capital, he continued to experiment with his theory of the ‘kino-eye’, and eventually madeOdinnadtsatyy (The Eleventh Year, 1928), Chelovek s kino-apparatom (The Man with the Movie Camera, 1929) and Entuziazm: Simfoniya Donbassa (Enthusiasm, or Symphony of the Donbas, 1931). However, Vertov continued to experience difficulties with the Soviet authorities over the avantgarde nature of his films, and his career, from 1930, until his death in 1954, was beset by such problems.” [3] “The youngest Montage directors came out of the Leningrad theater milieu of the early 1920s. In 1921, while still in their teens, Grigori Kozintsev (born 1905), Leonid Trauberg (born 1902), and Sergei Yutkevich (born 1904) formed the Factory of the Eccentric Actor (FEKS).

This theatrical troupe enthusiastically embraced the circus, the popular American cinema, the cabaret, and other entertainments. They issued provocative manifestos in the manner of the Cubo-Futurists’ Slap in the Face of Public Taste (1912). In 1922, the FEKS group defined how their approach to acting departed from that of the traditional theater: “from emotion to the machine, from anguish to the trick. The technique-circus. The psychology-head over heels.” They staged theatrical events that adopted the techniques of popular entertainments, and by 1924, they moved into the cinema with a short parody of American serials,Pokhozhdeniya Oktyabriny (The Adventures of Oktyabrina, 1924 – now lost). Yutkevich went on to make Montage films on his own; Kozintsev and Trauberg codirected several important films of the movement. Because of their taste for bizarre experimentation, the FEKS group were criticized by government officials from the start of their careers.

Eisenstein, Kuleshov, Pudovkin, Vertov, and the FEKS group were the principal early exponents of Soviet Montage. Other directors picked up their influences and developed the style. In particular, filmmakers working in the non-Russian republics enriched the Montage movement. Foremost among these was Alexander Dovzhenko, the principal Ukrainian director. Dovzhenko had been in the Red Army during the civil war and served as a diplomatic administrator in Berlin in the early 1920s. There he studied art, returning to the Ukraine as a painter and cartoonist. In 1926, he suddenly switched to filmmaking and made a comedy and a spy thriller before directing his first Montage film, Zvenigora , in 1927. Based on obscure Ukrainian folk legends, Zvenigorabaffled audiences but demonstrated an original style that emphasizes lyrical imagery above narrative. Dovzhenko went on to make two more important Montage films, Arsenal and Zemlya (Earth), also set in the Ukraine.” [3] “None of the important filmmakers of the Montage style was a veteran of the pre-Revolutionary industry.

All came from other fields (for example, Eisenstein from engineering and Pudovkin from chemistry) and discovered the cinema in the midst of the Revolution’s ferment. The Czarist-era filmmakers who remained active in the USSR in the 1920s tended to stick to older traditions. One popular director of the Czarist period, Yakov Protazanov, went abroad briefly after the Revolution but returned to continue making films whose style and form owed almost nothing to the theory and practice of the new filmmakers.” “Protazanov’s return coincided with a general loosening of government restrictions on private enterprise. In 1921, the country was facing tremendous problems, including a widespread famine. In order to facilitate the production and distribution of goods, Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy (NEP), which for several years permitted private management of business.

For film, the NEP meant a sudden reappearance of film stock and equipment belonging to the producers who had not emigrated. Slowly, Soviet production began to grow as private firms made more films. The government attempted, with little success, to control the film industry by creating a central distribution company, Goskino, in 1922. “Of all the arts, for us the cinema is the most important,” Lenin stated in 1922. Since Lenin saw film as a powerful tool for education, the first films encouraged by the government were documentaries and newsreels such as Vertov’s newsreel series Kino-Pravda, which began in May 1922.

Fictional films were also being made from 1917 on, but it was not until 1923 that a Georgian feature, Tsiteli eshmakunebi (Red Imps), became the first Soviet film to compete successfully with the foreign films predominant on Soviet screens. (And not until 1927 did the Soviet industry’s income from its own films top that of the films it imported.) The Soviet Montage style displayed tentative beginnings in 1924, with Kuleshov’s class from the State Film School presenting Neobychainye priklyucheniya mistera Vesta v strane bolshevikov (The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks). This delightful film, along with Kuleshov’s next film, Luch smerti (The Death Ray, 1925), showed that Soviet directors could apply Montage principles and come up with amusing satires or exciting adventures as entertaining as the Hollywood product.

Eisenstein’s first feature, Stachka (Strike), was released early in 1925 and initiated the movement proper. His second, Bronenosets Potyomkin (The Battleship Potemkin), premiered later in 1925, was successful abroad and drew the attention of other countries to the new movement. In the next few years, Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Vertov, and the Ukrainian Alexander Dovzhenko created a series of films that are classics of the Montage style. In their writings and films, these directors championed the powers of editing. Until the late 1910s, most Russian fiction films had based their scenes around lengthy, fairly distant shots that captured the actors’ performances. Analytical editing was rare. But films from Hollywood and from the French Impressionist filmmakers told their stories through fast cutting, including frequent close framings.

Inspired by these imports, the young Soviet directors declared that a film’s power arose from the combination of shots. Montage seemed to be the way forward for modern cimema. Not all of the young theoreticians agreed on exactly what the Montage approach to editing should be. Pudovkin, for example, believed that shots were like bricks, to be joined together to build a sequence. Eisenstein disagreed, saying that the maximum effect would be gained if the shots did not fit together perfectly, if they created a jolt for the spectator. Many filmmakers in the montage movement followed this approach. Eisenstein also favored juxtaposing shots in order to create a concept. Vertov disagreed with both theorists, favoring a cinema-eye approach to recording and shaping documentary reality.

Pudovkin’s Potomok Chingis-Khana (Storm over Asia) makes use of conceptual editing similar to that of Eisenstein’s Oktyabr (October): shots of a military officer and his wife being dressed in their accessories are intercut with shots of the preparation at the temple. Pudovkin’s parallel montage points up the absurdity of both rituals. The Montagists’ approach to narrative form set them apart from the cinemas of other countries. Soviet narrative films tended to downplay character psychology as a cause; instead, social forces provided the major causes.

Characters were interesting for the way these social causes affected their lives. As a result, films of the Soviet Montage movement did not always have a single protagonist. Social groups could form a collective hero, as in several of Eisenstein’s films. In keeping with this downplaying of individual personalities, Soviet filmmakers often avoided well-known actors, preferring to cast parts by searching out nonactors. This practice was calledtypage since the filmmakers would often choose an individual whose appearance seemed at once to convey the type of character he or she was to play. Except for the hero, Pudovkin used non-actors to play all of the Mongols in Storm over Asia.” [1]

The Writings

“The mid-1920s saw a burgeoning in Soviet film theory, as critics and filmmakers sought to understand cinema scientifically. Like the French Impressionists, several Montage directors considered theory and filmmaking to be closely linked, and they wrote about their conceptions of cinema. They were united in an opposition to traditional films. All saw in Montage the basis of revolutionary films that would inspire audiences. But the writings of the Montage directors differed in important ways. In many respects, Kuleshov was the most conservative theorist of the group. He admired the succinct storytelling of American films, and he discussed Montage chiefly as techniques of editing for clarity and emotional effects.” [3] Kuleshov had initially embarked upon his experiments with montage in an attempt to develop editing techniques which would link shot to shot in such a way that coherent, large-scale narrative structures could be developed, which would have a predetermined effect upon the audience.

For example, in hisArt of the Cinema (1929), Kuleshov argued that, initially, he and his group were primarily concerned with discovering ‘how this material was organised, what the fundamental impression-making means of cinematography is.’ ” [2] We went to various motion picture theatres and began to observe which films produced the optimum effect on the viewer and how these films were made – in other words, by means of which films and which techniques of film-making the film was able to take hold of a viewer and therefore to bring to his awareness what we had conceived, what we had intended to show, and, thus, what we intended to do. This aspect of Kuleshov’s work also influenced the ‘linkage’ theory of montage developed by Pudovkin, whose two 1926 pamphlets on filmmaking were soon translated into western languages (in English as Film Language, 1929). Through Pudovkin, Montage came to refer generally to dynamic, often discontinuous, narrative editing.

“Vertov was far more radical. Vertov entered the Soviet film debates of the early 1920s with vigorous attacks on fiction film. With his brother Mikhail Kaufman (1897-1980) as cameraman and his wife, Elizaveta Svilova (1900-1976), as coeditor, Vertov formed the Cine-Eye group. They began producing a newsreel series called Kino-Pravda, named after the official Soviet newspaper, Pravda (the term meant Cine-Truth, and was revived decades later for the French documentary film movement of the 1960s, cinéma vérité) More than twenty Kino-Pravda episodes were released between 1922 and 1925. In his manifestos, Vertov called for an approach to montage that was at once scientific and poetic, whose core lay in the organization of movement into a “rhythmical artistic whole.” That job belonged to the film editor, who shapes the movement of the overall work by determining the “intervals,” Vertov’s term for the transitions from one image to another.

Vertov’s sharp polemical pen earned him opponents as well as supporters. He was criticized from many directions: for depriving images of their status as documents; for using ineffective images that needed more design and composition; for overemphasizing inter titles; for attempting to monopolize the documentary field. One who voiced this last critique was Esfir Shub (1894-1959), whose career as a film editor and documentary filmmaker has been largely eclipsed by Vertov’s fame as a lone Soviet avatar of nonfiction film. In an era before archives and museums preserved film materials, Shub hunted down discarded footage and put together historical documentaries. In her first compilation film, Padenie dinastii Romanovykh (The Fall of the Romanov Dynasty, 1927), she crafted from what often appeared accidental or innocuous images a compelling narrative of events leading up to the abdication of the Russian monarch in February 1917.

This was followed by several similar works on Russian history and Soviet life.” [4] “Eisenstein developed the most complicated conception of Montage. Initially he believed in what he called the “montage of attractions” (as he boldly declared in the poster for his first stage production). As in a circus, the filmmaker should assemble a series of exciting moments to stimulate the viewer’s emotions. Later he formulated elaborate principles by which individual filmic elements could be combined for maximum emotional and intellectual effects.

He insisted that Montage was not limited to editing or even to Constructivist art in general. In a bold essay of 1920, he scoffed at Kuleshov and Pudovkin as treating shots like bricks that are joined to build a film. Bricks, he pointed out, do not interact with each other as film shots do. He asserted that shots should not be seen as simply linked but rather as conflicting sharply with one another. Even Eisenstein’s writing style, with its short sentences and paragraphs, tried to convey the principle of collision: The shot is by no means an element of montage.

The shot is a montage cell.

Just as cells in their division form a phenomenon of another order, the organism or embryo, so on the other side of the dialectical leap from the shot, there is montage. By what, then, is montage characterized and, consequently, its cell – the shot? By collision. By the conflict of two pieces in opposition to each other. By conflict. By collision. For Eisenstein, this conflict imitated the Marxist concept of the dialectic, in which antithetical elements clash and produce a synthesis that goes beyond both. Montage could compel the spectator to sense the conflict between elements and create a new concept in his or her mind. In “collision Montage,” Eisenstein foresaw the possibility of an “intellectual” cinema.

It would attempt not to tell a story but to convey abstract ideas, as an essay or political tract might. He dreamed of filming Karl Marx’s Capital, creating concepts through images and editing rather than through verbal language. Certain of his films took first steps toward intellectual filmmaking. The filmmakers’ theories did not always accord with their practice. Kuleshov and Pudovkin in particular proved more daring as filmmakers than their essays might suggest. All the core Montage directors, however, wrote about film technique as a vivid way to shape the new Soviet society by arousing and educating their audiences.” [3]

The End

“By the end of the 1920s, each of the major directors of this movement had made about four important films. The decline of the movement was not caused primarily by industrial and economic factors as in Germany and France. Instead, the government strongly discouraged the use of the Montage style. By the late 1920s, Vertov, Eisenstein, and Dovzhenko were being criticized for their excessively formal and esoteric approaches. In 1929, Eisenstein went to Hollywood to study the new technique of sound; by the time he returned in 1932, the attitude of the film industry had changed. While he was away, a few filmmakers carried their Montage experiments into sound cinema in the early 1930s. But the Soviet authorities, under Stalin’s direction, encouraged filmmakers to create simple films that would be readily understandable to all audiences. Stylistic experimentation or nonrealistic subject matter was often criticized or censored.

This trend culminated in 1934, when the government instituted a new artistic policy called Socialist Realism. This policy dictated that all artworks must depict revolutionary development while being firmly grounded in realism. The great Soviet directors continued to make films, occasionally masterpieces, but the Montage experiments of the 1920s had to be discarded or modified. Eisenstein managed to continue his work on Montage but occasionally incurred the wrath of the authorities up until his death in 1948. As a movement, the Soviet Montage style can be said to have ended by 1933, with the release of such films as Vertov’s Entuziazm: Simfoniya Donbassa (Enthusiasm, 1931) and Pudovkin’s Dezertir (Deserter, 1933).” [1]

During the Montage movement’s existence, perhaps fewer than thirty films were made in the style. Nevertheless, as in France and Germany, these avant-garde films were prestigious and influential. Leftist filmmakers in other countries, especially documentarists like Scottish-born John Grierson and Dutch Joris Ivens, adopted heroic, low-angle framings and dynamic cutting for similar propaganda purposes. Pudovkin’s and Eisenstein’s theoretical writings have been read by critics and filmmakers ever since they were translated. Few filmmakers have used the full range of radical Montage devices, but in amodified fashion, the movement has had a broad influence.”

You may also be interested in the following: every country has unique characteristics essay

Unique Characteristics of Soviet Montage Essay

Film Analysis of The Lady Eve Essay

Film Analysis of The Lady Eve Essay.

The Lady Eve is a film, which tells the love tale of unlikely couple who meet each other in one of their trip on a Luxury Liner. The movie was released way back 1941 in the United States, directed by a multi-talented Director “Preston Sturges” and was written by a great dramatist “Monckton Hoffe”. In general, the lady eve is a romantic comedy film, filled with different twists and turns, on which gives a picture of an extra ordinary love story of two individuals living in a totally different world.

With the depicted differences in the storyline, the plot of the movie is definitely interesting and exciting.

(Star Pulse) Although, the movie Lady Eve, by Preston Sturges, did not achieve major success to garner movie awards and honorable recognition in film festival, apart from the nomination for Academy Awards – Best Writing and Original Story. The film still receives a bunch of positive feedback from credible movie critic in different generation, on which the director, artists and the rest of the people responsible for the movie had received positive recognition from the viewers of almost every generation for the film “The Lady Eve”.

(Star Pulse)

In the year 1994, the movie Lady Eve was acknowledged as socially, aesthetically and historically significant by the “United States National Film Registry”, on which the movie was selected for preservation by the “Library of Congress” for its social and moral importance. Nevertheless, the Lady Eve film was a wonderful work of art, that gives a fair picture of romance and comedy love tale, which mirrors a true to life situation of love and journey. (Star Pulse) Talented actors and actresses, on the other hand, had been pivotal on the outcome of the movie.

The cast of the movie is set with bunch of – talented, effective, actors and actresses. Reputable actress, “Barbara Stanwyck” had played the lead role as Jean Harrington and a multi-talented film and stage actor “Henry Fonda” portrayed the leading man role as Charles Pike. In the movie, Barbara Stanwyck and and Charles Pike had played great music, on which they complement each other with their role and make the movie more appealing and exciting to watch. Nonetheless, the movie Lady Eve is one of the most humorous film way back the World War II era, on which a survivor of ever changing taste of the movie critics and audiences.

(Star Pulse) Moreover, the Lady Eve is a thematic romance and comedy film. It tells the tale of two strangers with different outlook in life, bind together of their fate when they meet at a Luxury Shipping Line in one of their travels. Jean Harrington is a con artist who lives with her father “Colonel Harrington”, on which she falls in love with a guy she met on her travel. Charles Pike, on the other hand, is a rich and decent man – a philologist, who stayed in Amazon for a long period of time for his study on snakes.

The movie takes place in a ship, when Jean Harrington is on a travel with her father heading back to New York, sharing the same luxury ship with the unsophisticated guy Charles Pike, who is on his travel back to the United States after his long stay in Amazon for his studies. In the ship’s dinning, Jean Harrington had saw Charles who is at that time reading a book, entitled “Are Snakes Necessary”. This scene is really funny, as Jean showed up her attraction to Charles Pike, when she trips Charles on purpose to drive his attention.

This scene had been the start of the romance and comedy, on which Jean and Charles had fall to each other. In the story, snakes had been the sexual symbol that is the start of romance scenes between the two lead characters. Truthfully in love as they are, Jean and Charles, had several misunderstanding and broke up with each other. The movie is filled with romance and comedy scenes where it depicts the journey of Jean and Charles as a lover that later on succeeds in pursuit of their love. Nonetheless, this movie is totally a thematic romance and comedy film that tells the difficulties and happiness of an extra ordinary love story.

In the end, Jean Harrington and Charles Pike had survived the challenges of love, despite the many differences that threatens their relationship, they managed to surpass and live with each other in-love. After all, the movie has a great opening and ended as one of the superb romantic comedy love tale, the movie industry had. It can be argued that comedy is the true theme of the movie Lady Eve. The movie is amazingly funny, on which almost every scenes is a depiction of comedy acts that is definitely satisfying – it brings me to laughter.

No doubt, the Lady Eve is a product of humorous mind that depicts funniest twists and turns in its story. Definitely, most of the scenes in the movie contribute to address properly the theme of the movie. One of those scenes is the opening scenario, on which Jean trips Charles on purpose when she broke her heel to attract the attention of Charles. It possibly funny, due to the fact that Barbara Stanwyck, had turned to be an effective comedy actress in her role in the movie. Another one is the scenes where snake serve as the sexual metaphor.

It is many to mention specifically what scene, however, parts in the movie definitely contributes to address the true theme of the movie. The elements of the movie, on the other hand; which are divided into five, are effectively connected with each other to complete the theme. The narrative of the movie is chronological, on which the setting and plot of the film is according to the present time when it was produced. The movie depicts, the same era of the forties and is produced according on the order of time, during the 1940’s in the United States.

Artist’s performance on the other hand showcases a superb portrayal of a role that is realistic and effectively funny. Major actors and actresses, mostly Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda had been real with their portrayal of their role, on which they have been effective to be funny mostly in critical scenes in the movie. Nonetheless, the casts of the movie acts accordingly with the progress of the movie. Also, cinematography plays a pivotal role in the whole essence of the movie. It is the defining factor of certain scene, on which proper lighting and appropriate camera angle adds more emotion on the scene.

In the movie Lady Eve, the cinematography is amazingly brilliant that supported the emotional aura of every scene in the film. One of my personal choices of cinematography in the movie is the scenes which involves Charles and his snakes. The camera angles are perfect – I admire the detailed angle of the snakes, and the lighting definitely sets the mood of that specific scene. With the aspect of editing, the editors had their job well done, as they apply appropriate transition of every scene that depicts on the movie.

Each scene is well expressive, with the help of correct transition of every camera shots, from one angle to another. Nevertheless, the editing of the movie was wonderful, I admire the way the editors used “fade in, fade out” technique for the appropriate transition of each scene, which particularly interesting of the whole editing of the movie. In the art direction and design are perfect, as the directors and the rest of the crew had used proper – locations, effects, props, costumes and make up in the movie.

The locations of every scene are perfect, which make every scenario organized with the actual time. Effects, props and costumes, on the other hand, are effective to make the scenes realistic and effective to imply proper emotions. All the funny and comedy scenes in the movie, however, are the definition of the style and strategy of the director, on which these scenes are definitely filled with humorous mind of director Preston Sturges. I personally like this movie, because of two main reasons.

First is “humor”, I personally like the film on its humorous scripts which every funny scene are depictions of superb humor that brings me to laughter. Secondly, I personally like the movie because of its profound portrayal of comedy, on which every scene is a depiction of humor that at any moment funny thoughts will pop out in the script. After all, the movie Lady Eve is film filled with clear scripts and funniest scenes, which is definitely one of the finest movie in forties. Works Cited Star Pulse (2008),The Lady Eve Review: Retrieved May 8, 2008 from http://www. starpulse. com/movie/The_Lady_Eve/V28051/0/5/

Film Analysis of The Lady Eve Essay