Citizen Kane

I like Laura Mulvey's approach to analyzing Citizen Kane a lot. She addresses quite a lot of topics concerning the film, such as production history or different analytical approaches. This shows not only how much material and information you can gain from this outstanding film, but also how you can make meaning of a film by looking at it from different perspectives. I, for example, was never really interested in production history, but especially with films such as Citizen Kane or even The Big Sleep, it gives an explanation to how decisions made beyond the camera influence the actual work. With Citizen Kane, the question of authorship and the fact that Orson Welles was given this extraordinary creative freedom was intriguing, because it certainly attributes to the myths about the films and it's reputation as one of the best films ever made.

Carringer/Mulvey- Citizen Kane

If you're into movies, you might be aware the Citizen Kane regularly ranks in the top 3 of the greatest movies of all time. When I first saw it, I was 15 or so, and while I liked it, I didn't think it was better than The Godfather or The Empire Strikes Back or Casablanca or Shawshank Redemption or any other all time classic. That is because I could not appreciate it completely. I simply did not have the knowledge and competency to fully grasp its importance and effectiveness. What these two readings have done, in addition to reading the relevant section in Film Art and seeing the film again as a 21 year old, is given me a much better understanding and greater appreciation for Citizen Kane as a film.

When I saw this movie for the first time, about it seemed different from the other few movies I had seen from the 1940s. I couldn't say what it was that made it different. It was black and white and that's all I could really see. What I know now is that there are many things that set this film apart from almost all others. It is a masterpiece in the strictest sense of the word. Orson Welles masterfully created this piece of art. It is totally innovative. Welles' creative streak was evident in Carringer's review of the Heart of Darkness debacle. Welles sought to do things that had not been done before. Things that had previously seemed technically impossible. Things that would obviously be very expensive. That did not stop Welles from doing them, instead he would end up thinking of even more creative ways to accomplish what he wanted to. Welles was a man of the theater and a star of the radio. He was one of the most highly regarded names in entertainment. It was only natural that he would play an important part in the history of cinema as he played an important part in the history of live visual performance and auditory performance. It seemed like the natural conclusion for him to eventually have a career in the arena where technology, sound, and performance meet, which is film. The most impressive part to me is his high level of involvement on every single level of the film. He is an excellent example of an auteur. He was a perfectionist and knew exactly what he wanted. He was probably unbearably difficult to deal with but also probably undeniably a genius. He was so focused on detail and meaning that there does not seem to be a single shot in the entire film that was not thought thoroughly planned out in every facet of filmmaking. Composition, staging, framing, editing, mise en scene, camera angle, camera movement, lighting, narration, narrative structure, and just about every other formal element of film is so carefully constructed in this film it is a wonder that Welles did not go crazy. In fact, he probably already was to a degree. Most geniuses are. The meaning he creates with every shot is so deep and there are so many layers. In our shot exercises in class I was under the impression I could look at one shot and just peel back layer after layer and find more and more new and different meanings. Some of it could have been a reach, but there are so many things to think about in Citizen Kane. It is no surprise to me that Laura Mulvey was able to write this book from just one perspective of film analysis. As we discovered in class, there are a number of different ways to analyze a film and the best way to practice these approaches is to take a look at Citizen Kane. I remember times in English classes where I felt as though my teacher was reaching for a meaning in the text that probably was not there. I cannot say Mulvey was doing a lot of reaching.

I really enjoy reading about the production history of films. I have always thought about getting involved in film production myself. Carringer's reading made it seem pretty intimidating in a lot of ways. The amount of work and thought Welles put into this film himself is astounding and overwhelming. The amount of practical and technical efforts that had to be made in order to successfully produce this film is incredible. The fact that they got so creative in order to come in at a reasonable number on their budget that they actually innovated and did fantastic things is amazing. It is truly a work of art and imagination. There are so many more things I would like to say about this film but I simply do not have the time to go through them all. I feel as though I have written so much and yet said so little of what I wanted to say.

Citizen Kane

In reading Laura Mulvey's "Citzen Kane," I thought the most interesting approach was to compare how things occurred surrounding the production of Citizen Kane, versus what would probably have occurred if it were to be filmed now. Mulvey states that prior to this film, Orson Welles had had a series of production blunders, including his filming of Heart of Darkness (which never made it past pre-production). Despite this trend, studio owners decided to stick with Welles, and give him and William Randolph complete say over how the film was done. As a result, both filmmakers were able to complete a masterpiece film which creates a labyrinth like structure, in which the viewer is constantly trying to decipher. They also broke conventions in creating a film that mixed "technology, style, and the aesthetics of cinema." If this movie were to be made today, however, the studios probably would have abandoned Welles long ago, and instead focused on a filmmaker who would be able to gain a profit. This juxtaposition, I feel, fully demonstrates the stranglehold the studio system has over creativity in Hollywood. While I do feel that Hollywood does still put out some fantastic films, I think the overall output of quality films has significantly decreased, as studios attempt to value profit over creativity.

Wollen Article

In his article, "From Signs and Meaning in the Cinema," author Peter Wollen discusses the progression of auteur theory in international film discourse. He does so, especially, by emphasizing the career of Howard Hawks, an American auteur from the 1930's to the 1960's. Hawk's seperated his films into two seperate categories, the drama and the comedy. "[His] dramas show the mastery of man over nature, over women, over the animal and childish; the comedies show his humiliation." Hawks, as a result from his repetition of motifs, Hawks became considered as an auteur during his a career, a filmmaker whose works were considered to be masterpieces. What I found most interesting about this article, however, was the discussion of the early development of auteur theory. Wollen makes it seem as if American filmmakers were only considered by their peers due to a lucky coincedence of two seperate factors. The first was the history of France. France had banned American films during the Vichy governemnt era. After the war, however, American films flooded the market with more emotional impact than most films, thus taking advantage of the weakened spirit of France. On top of this, a cine-phile club had sprung up in France, which sought to analyze films. This club eventually gave American filmmakers the time of day they deserved, and ultimately led to the appreciation of works which otherwise would not have been.

Bazin Article

Since I would like to pursue a career in sound editing for film, Andre Bazin's article, "The Evolution of the Language of Cinema," actually made me angry as I read it. His main argument is that montage is the most effective means of emotional conveyence within film itself, and all other elements are subordinate. In making this argument, I felt as if Bazin severely downplays the signifigance sound can have in film, and especially in conveying the films emotional state. He states himself that, "the cinema has at its disposal a whole arsenal of means whereby to impose its interpretation of an event on the spectator." My argument is that these means are not more important than one another, but rather, to use Eisenstein's metaphor, bricks making up a wall. Each piece, from music, to montage, and even what Bazin refers to as the "plastic" play a role in the overall meaning of the film. My best example is where would suspense or horror films be without sound? Everyone knows the sound of films like those are one of the most important aspects, and I felt as if Bazin fails to recognize this. This is only represented by his line, "sound could only play at best a subordinate and supplementary role: a counterpoint to the visual image."

Mulvey book

I enjoyed this book, as it provided a different perspective than the other readings we've had on Citizen Kane. The Film Art textbook talked mostly about concrete formal elements and structure in the film and the Carringer excerpts discussed the film production history - both of these were interesting but it was nice to have the psychoanalytical insight as well. I had not thought about Kane's separation from his mother and rebellion against Thatcher, his surrogate father, in an Oedipal context before, but it does make a certain kind of sense the way Mulvey lays it out. Additionally the idea of Susan as a part of his collection was interesting, I had not thought of her in those terms before. I found the political tie ins interesting but felt like I did not have quite enough historical background to completely understand all of Mulvey's points about Hearst, Welles and Kane's political stances. Overall it was a good read with many interesting ideas.

Mulvey

I really thought that Mulvey’s writing was very insightful and I enjoyed reading it more than Carringers. I thought it was interesting bow Mulvey talked about the musical motifs that were used throughout Citizen Kane. This is something that I noticed while watching the movie but didn’t really think too much about it. I thought it was so interesting that these motifs were supposed to represent Kane’s power and personality, because it is something that resonates implicitly with the audience but I think its also a very unconscious understanding. She states “Bernard Hermann wrote about the necessity for musical leitmotivs in Citizen Kane. There are two main motifs. One- a simple four-note figure in brass- is that of Kane’s power. It is given out in the first two bar scenes of the film. The second motif is that of ‘Rosebud’; heard as a solo on the vibraphone, it first appears during the death scene at the very beginning of the picture. It is heard again and again throughout the film under various guises, and if followed closely, is a clue to the ultimate identity of the ‘Rosebud’ itself” (18).

Mulvey also talks a lot about psychoanalytic theory and feminism and how it was a main influence on her analysis of the film. She speaks a lot about how the film used unconventional approaches that challenged the viewer to think in a different way and causes the viewer to “construct a language of cinema that meshes with the language of the psyche” (16). I am not sure exactly what the full implications of this statement are and I look forward to discussing it further in class.

Carringer

I thought the chapter on the post production and release was especially interesting because all of this information is not readily available about most movies to come out during that time period. Welles really had a lot of expertise about every aspect of the post production which proved to be a good and bad thing at the same time. His controlling nature made it difficult to get portions of the film finished in a timely manner. I thought the section on Sound was especially interesting because Welles had such an extensive background in radio before he made this movie that many parts were definitely influenced heavily by this. Welles taking the approach of giving actors roles because of how their voices sounded was out of radio clearly as normally they would not be visible. By shooting for radio quality excellence in the sound Welles enhanced the overall quality of the movie. Carringer points out the Colorado scene as an example as the adults dominate the soundtrack but the children are barely audible in the background. This kind of refined sound editing was normally overlooked in movies of the period as they were much more focused on the picture. Welles was just a perfectionist for both.

Laura Mulvey

Throughout Citizen Kane, I found the glass ball to be of particular interest. I knew that it had to have some significance throughout the movie because of the opening scene with Kane's last words being uttered towards the object for a reason unknown to the viewer. With this in mind, I tried to keep alert for this motif throughout the movie, and Laura Mulvey addresses this motif in an interesting way, some ways in which I didn't notice as she delves into deeper meaning of the glass ball. Mulvey mentions how there are only three times when the glass ball appears, and I find it interesting that they contribute so much meaning to the film although it appears so little times, and one time it is almost unnoticeable. It shows in the beginning of the film, the scene of Kane's death, and at the end when Susan leaves him (it is not acknowledged as it sits on her dressing table). Mulvey points out that the narration between Susan and Kane almost foreshadows the meaning of the glass ball in terms of Kane's connection to it. Kane mentions his mother, and this is only one of two times he mentions her revealing nostalgia for the past. The sled represents Kane's childhood and the only time in his life he was truly happy. I never realized this subtle link to Kane's past as the glass ball is present without acknowledgment by Susan, Kane, or the camera.

Carringer

In discussing art design, I thought it was cool that after sketches were approved for a set design little models of the set would be made to imitate what it would look like. This is similar to architects having models of their newest development plans. The pictures shown added insight to exactly what was being discussed and further allowed me to visualize the art process of creating a film set. Also interesting was the way in which certain artistic decisions were made to emanate a certain theme or feeling of a scene (specific example of the great hall stair case.) When discussing the photographic approach, we learn that the principal elements included deep focus, long takes, high contrast lighting, low angle camera set ups and dissolves, depth of field effects, and shooting directly into lights. I am glad that while reading that I am able to envision each of these elements due to knowledge attained in this class.
I found it interesting when Carringer discusses the roadblocks and compromises Welles had to make when producing the remake of Heart Of Darkness-Specifically discussing the character role of Marlowe. I found it informative to learn that because of a limited budget, Citizan Cane utilized more special effects than most other Hollywood films- I would normally assume the opposite for a limited budget. The first example given is indicative of the forced nature of special effects to keep film costs down. The example was of the shots in madison sq garden where on the speakers platform is the live action set and the giant hall and audience are painted in. Interestingly so, beyond cost efficiency, Welles actually had a fondness for the use of special effects which was one reason the finished product of the film took so long- Welles kept wanting to add effects to certain scenes. I enjoyed reading about the connection of Welles background in radio and the influence this had on the sound in Citizen Cane. Throughout the film “flashy” sound effects are used and apparently not by accident. The break down of the “most celebrated piece of editing in the film” showed the interworking of dialogue and image and the subtle nature of it all together. What may look so simple to viewers could take editors unimaginably long time to finish.
The scandal and controversy surrounding Mankiewicz work with Welles is fascinating. Along side his drinking problem, Mankiewics worked in an isolated setting with the help of Houseman assisting him and keeping him away from trouble. Scandal arose when the first draft of “American” had striking similarities to Imperial Hearst. Clearly an agreement was made because by the second draft huge chunks were changed to lessen such similarities. The final controversy discussed was also brought up in the beginning of the first reading- credits. Welles intentions to take sole responsibility for the script did not sit well with most. When Mankiewicz’s name was going to be listed first on the credits, this was immediately changed due to the agreement the two men had prior to the work beginning.
Overall all of the readings were extremely information and provided great insight into all of the work that went into producing the final product of Citizen Cane. It is always interesting and helpful to be reminded of the many steps often forgotten in the production of a film and all of the reading reminded us of just that.

Mulvey

One thing that I enjoyed reading about in both the Carringer chapters and Laura Mulvey's book, was the connecction between Kane and Hearst. Although the film is now considered to be one of the greates of all time, when it was released it did very poorly at the box office, mostly because of a smear campaign which was initiated by Hearst's confidantes and facilitated through his newspapers. Because of the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, Hearst, a business tycoon who stood for capitalism, stood in contrast to the New Deal era of social welfare and public works programs. It would seem that this would make him a target for other filmmakers, however he had a lot of influence, as seen by the unsuccessful opening of the film, and exerted a lot of fear among the members of the Hollywood studio system.

Carringer also delves into Citizen Kane from a psychoanalytic approach, applying the Oedipus Complex to Kane. which stems from his removal from his parents at a young age so that he can go to live with Thatcher on the East Coast. Also, she discusses Kane's fetishism, which is shown through his collection of artifacts from around the world, as well as his collecting of Susan and treatment of her as an object. This fetishism is once again linked to Kane's mother and his removal from her.

Carringer

The Carringer article was interesting because it gave me an inside view about the making of Citizen Kane, from idea conception to post-production. It seems like Orson Welles was a pretty difficult man to work for, especially because his films were not very successful. The dispute over the writing credit, for instance, seems crazy because it actually was Mankiewicz that wrote the original bones of the script. Also, I was wondering as I was reading if the amount of cuts that they had to make in order for the film to be around the starting budget was normal for this time, because the budget at the beginning was twice that which was allowed in the contract.

Welles' experience in the theater and the radio is evident in the sound of the film, and the Carringer book touched on this. Chapter 5 states '...the repertory approach, for instance, in which roles are created for specific performers with their wonderfully expressive voices in mind' is just one of the ways that Welles' previous experienced translated to his filmmaking style. Also, new technology in the recording of sound where 'the rerecording of sound for improvement or enhancement during postproduction' gave Welles options in how he was able to control the sound, especially the recorded dialogue.

Mulvey

Laura Mulvey’s book, Citizen Kane shows “ how unusual production circumstances allowed both pre-existing and recent technological changed to be brought together, consciously and systematically, in order to create a new look for film.” During the time that Citizen Kane opened, the destiny of isolationism is realized in metaphor.” In Kanes own fate, dying wealthy and lonely, surrounded by the detritus of European culture and history. “

Mulvey states that the main influences on her thought of Citizen Kane have been psychoanalytic theory and feminism, not just in terms of the content, but also how the film depicts women and uses freud. “ “ Citizen Kane, presents a kind of back to front challenge to feminist criticism.” Throughout the film, we can see that the glamour is not put on any female, but only on the males.

Another aspect Mulvey touches on is the language of the mind. “ In cinema, objects, gestures, looks, mise en scene, lighting, framing, and all the accoutrements of the filmic apparatus materialize into a kind of language before or even beyond words.”

Mulvey says there is a poetic justice in Welles and Tolands use of deep focus in a film which attacks Hearst. “ The magnate of news papers and old style movies is depicted in a new style cinematography pioneered by the news papers new rival, the photo- magazines. This style completely contradicts Hearst.

One aspect of Mulvey’s analysis is when she says that the story is structurally divided into two parts. The two parts of Kanes rise and decline, separate the two parts narratively, but his relation to male and female worlds separates the two parts thematically. This is something that I failed to observe while watching the film.

Realting Mulveys analysis to characters and the male figures that are so dominant in the film, she talks about the scene inside the log cabin. This scene splits Kanes father figures on each side of the symbolic systems. “ One represents poverty, failure, and ignorance, the other represents wealth, success and education.”

Lastly, as opposed to having a story of the American dream or success from the log cabin to the white house, the story ends in Xanadu, ending in isolation and darkness and clear unhappiness. Kane’s relationship with Susan goes from a fun escape and love affair to an empty dark atmosphere full of statues and arguments. When Susan threatens to leave, he says he will do anything for her, and she leaves. We see Kanes desperation here and the first time a woman symbolizes power in the film.

Carringer

The carringer articles on Citizen Cane were very informative and interesting. I agree with Natalie in the fact that we watch movies but never really read in detail about the making, budgeting and the problem solving that occurs behind the scenes. One interesting part was the part that the film was “ forced- developed” in the laboratory and was left in chemicals for longer to increase the lighting contrast. Also, learning about the cinematography specifically in Citizen Cane was very interesting. Reading in detail about the lighting contrast, camera angles, set ups, visual devices and depth of field and how they related to the film were very informative.

Another part of the article that was fascinating to me were all the sketches that were necessary in making the film. This combined with the evolution of the set, showing the audience how the set and certain details were critical to the film as a whole.

This article made clear the endless work and detail that goes into the production of film.

Wilder Interview

I found the Wilder Interview very interesting, because it gave us some funny and useful backstory on some films we saw, for example Some like it Hot or Double Indemnity. One the one hand I thought that it very much illustrated the auteur theory, because the interview showed that Wilder had a vision, certain concepts that he wanted to convey etc. On the other hand, it showed just how much film is a piece of art that is shaped by many different people, and often just chance. I liked, for example, the way he described which light he chose for Marlene Dietrich, and how it was not different from any other lighting, but that she just "lit herself".

Auteur Theory

The auteur theory is basically a structuralistic approach to film. By comparing a director's film, critics map out similarities and differences to the individual auteur's work. Thus, the films are rather seen as a text, a catalog of elements that build the structure of his or her works. In many ways, this theory is comparable to the genre theory. One example is the notion that most of the auteur's works include antinomic pairs. (Wollen 597) Schatz, however, puts this element of film as a conflict, it is basically the same. Although they are quite similar in theory, film genre theory is more universal, whereas auteur theory can only be applied to a handfull of directors, which somewhat limits a critics approach to film.

Film Genre

The article about film genre by Schatz was interesting because it motivated me to think further than what he states. He looks as genre like a linguistic system, with certain static characteristics that only slightly change. In film these would be a plot that is motivated by a conflict which needs to be resolved (either by violence or sex, as Schatz says) and characters. According to Schatz, these conflicts mostly range from a threat to the existing social order, or to certain cultural attitudes. Thus, different genres evolve that basically all have the aforementioned treats. They only process them differently.

But when the genres basic conflict is a threat to the existing conflict order, then it necessarily has to change. As society changes, the static element of genres are evolving, even if it is just a little bit. This brings an interesting dynamic to the issue. If we look at the films made in recent times, we can see how certain topics are being updated, especially in sequels. Movies like TRON vs. TRON: Legacy, Wall Street vs. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps come to mind, or even Avatar, which is not much more than a modern rendition of Pocahontas. They all deal with similar issues and show us how things stay the same, but also develop at the same time.

Eisenstein and Montage

At first, I was rather irritated by the way Eisenstein builds up his argument, because he constantly references to Japan Kabuki theatre, art, and writing. Although this was very interesting and informative, it was difficult to follow where he was going. But while I was reading the text for the second time, I realized that he actually really intelligently laid out the basics for his final idea, which is montage. He uses, for example, Japanese writing. With each stroke, a new meaning is added to the existing hieroglyph, thus developing it from an object to an idea or a concept. (Eisenstein 128) His method of editing, in the end, is very similar. Eisenstein focuses on creating new concepts or associations by joining shots that would normally conflict in itself or create a conflict in the viewer. Therefore, the viewer is "activated" to develop a concept of his or her own or respond to the concept created by the filmmaker.

Carringer-- Citizen Kane

It was really interesting to learn the detailed process of the pre-production of Citizen Kane. I really didn’t realize how much detail goes into every aspect of a movie. I thought it was so cool to see all the storyboards and particularly to see how the set design for the Xanadu Great Hall was developed and changed due to budget restrictions. After reading Wilder’s interview, which seemed much more relaxed about the movie production process, it was interesting to see such a detail oriented take on film production. I didn’t realize the legality that goes into these productions, I was very surprised to find out that every step of evolution that the script goes through has to be saved in order to avoid being accused of copy infringement. I also thought that it was really cool that due to their budget restriction, during one of the scenes that required a large audience of people, the audience was actually painted into the background, “resorting to optical trickery” by using light to imitate people using their programs and moving around (87). I am not sure how realistic this looked in actuality but it is a pretty cool idea if the cost of extras is too much.

Citizen Kane - Carringer

I found Carringer's research on Citizen Kane to be very interesting. There were many things about it that I would not have guessed, particularly how many rewrites and changes the script went through. This seemed quite surprising in contrast to the Billy Wilder interview we read last week, in which he talks about making certain films in under 50 days from start to finish. I also thought it was interesting how the drafts went back and forth between the idea of each narrator relating only what he could have known firsthand, and the idea of assigning bits of one person's story to a different narrator in order to make the film flow more smoothly. I also had never heard about the controversy over the screenwriting credit, which I found intriguing having just read about auteur theory.
The chapter about Art Direction was my favorite, probably because my goal is to work in the art department on either films or television shows someday. The chapter about Toland's cinematographic work was also very interesting, as it seems he had quite a lot to do with the feel of the movie, from the way it was shot. The section on special effects was also quite interesting. I found it fascinating to read about the way effects were produced before computers.

Interview/Auteurs

I have seen a number of Billy Wilder's films and some of them rank among my favorites. It's interesting to read about this man that made so many excellent films in such a short period of time. His stretch of films that he directed and has a writing credit in from 1944-1963 rivals any filmmaker's catalog. It's funny because, like John Ford as mentioned in class, Wilder seems to downplay his contribution to film as an artform and his methods and artistic intentions as well. We can sort of see past that as apparently he gave Peter Sellers and Walter Matthau heart attacks and had many of his own anxieties about filmmaking. He was clearly a man who cared not only about his job but also his art and craft. His economy of filmmaking is pretty impressive too. It seems he had no trouble getting sufficient footage to make his films in a limited number of takes. It also seems like there was not a lot of planning ahead, just simply doing things at the time because they felt right, made sense, and needed to be done. Billy Wilder was able to make films that are very important to cinema history by just trying to make things simple for himself and others. Apparently it may have been stressful along the way but Wilder just seemed to make stuff happen as he saw fit without overthinking it. If I were a filmmaker, I think I would want to do it that way, with fewer heart attacks.

I always thought the auteur theory was like the concept of film genre in that there's no strict set of rules or a complete guideline for classifying or determining auteurs but it's more of an idea you can play with for your own understanding of a filmmaker's work. Like the Western genre, you can identify it in a number of ways and there comes a point where a movie is either a Western or it is not. What that point is, however, is unclear. Yet, for the viewer or the critic, the answer will usually feel obvious. We know what a John Ford movie is. We know what a Western is. We know that a John Ford movie is a John Ford movie because he created it, designed, executed it, and put his stamp on it. When John Ford is making a Western, it feels like a John Ford Western. No one else makes John Ford Westerns because only Ford can do so.

Wilder Interview

The interview with Wilder was extremely interesting because I feel like it brought another dimension to the films that we have watched: Some like it Hot and Double Indemnity. I was shocked to find out that no one in Hollywood would take the main male role because it was too dark. In contrast with some of the characters in movies today, Phil’s role was pretty light so I found that very surprising. It is really interesting that MacMurray was considered an odd casting and that he had done comedies up until that point. I was not familiar with this actor before this movie so it is shocking to me that he usually did comedy because he seems like the serious and witty detective type, not a comedian. Furthermore, Wilder takes about how the woman, who played Phyllis, Stanwyck, lived and breathed the role and she knew everybody’s lines. I think that is reflected very well in the film because she did such a good job at playing a manipulated seductress that she really must have had to “live” that character to do such a seemingly effortless job at playing the part.

Lastly, I was very interested in how Wilder was talking a lot about Star Power. He compared Julia Roberts as a modern day Audrey Hepburn. I found this interesting because I guess Pretty Woman could be a modern version of My Fair Lady. He also mentioned Marilyn Monroe as being one-of-a-kind, saying, “you can meet someone and be enchanted, but then photograph them and nothing” (52). It is very interesting because there is a definite ‘it’ factor that these actors/actresses must possess. I feel like not only do they have to be charismatic in someway off the camera, but then be able to transfer that on camera and have the right tools to be a convincing actor.

Auteur Theory

“American cinema was worth studying in depth, that masterpieces were made by… a whole range of authors, who’s work had been previously dismissed and consigned to oblivion” (589) . I am a little confused by the two different categories of auteur critics: “those who insisted on revealing a core of meanings, of thematic motifs, and those who stressed style and mise-en-scene” (590). He goes on to say how auteur is more semantic than stylistic which confuses me because I thought that film style contributes to the semantic aspect of films, therefore they go hand in hand and cannot be separated. The author also mentions metteur en scene, which differentiates from auteur because it is a more formal interpretation in that it stays focused on the performance and nothing beyond that.

Howard Hawks exemplifies this auteur theory because it continues to use the same motifs. The only thing I have seen of his movies is the Big Sleep so I really do not have much to compare it to but it did not seem to fall into the categories that were mentioned in this article although it did have aspects of the “adventure drama” because it mentions strong men which I believe Phil falls under that category of.

Interview/Actors and their Roles

I really loved reading the interview with William Wyler, the parts where he talked about casting in Double Indemnity I found especially interesting because it speaks to the evolution of acting in the time period. Wyler felt like he had to convince prominent actors to take on their roles in this movie because most actors were not comfortable being portrayed as villains in an age where comedies reigned supreme it was hard to risk ruining comedic image. Wyler talks about how Stanwick took the role and ran with it, something he was not necessarily expecting but loved. "You could wake her up in the middle of the night, and she'd know the lines--everyone's lines" She also embellished her murderess role even more than Wyler required and this added to the strength of the movie. Indemnity can potentially be seen as a transition by actors to become more willing to accept a controversial role.

Today if you think about it villains are no longer considered a bad thing to play, almost to the contrary one can really get even more credit for a performance that jumps out of your comfort zone. What Wyler told Fred McCmurray who was thinking about taking the role in Indemnity rings true "you're at a certain point where you either have to stop, or you have to jump over the river and try something new" I think of modern day performances of Hannibal Lector by Anthony Hopkins or The Joker by Heath Ledger as examples of actors who really went out of their potential comfort zone--this showed their range and proved that they actually could ACT not just read from scripts.

Schatz

I thought that Schatz’s article was extremely easy to read which was very refreshing. A lot of it was very identifiable because I was familiar with a lot of what she was talking about however I am still a little confused about the difference between film genre and genre film. He defines genre as being a “range of expression for the viewers” (695). This talk of ranging of expression reminds me of Halloween because the audience at any given moment can go from relaxed, to on edge, to terrified because the different voyeuristic camera angles and the music combined can create drastic mood changes. The director also manipulated the film into always tricking the audience, the music suggests that something scary is about to happen but then nothing does, or we see Michael Meyers watching Laurie but at second look he is gone.

Bazin

In Bazin’s article, Bazin argues that in a two year period from 1928 to 1930 there was a “new birth of cinema” (155). The use of language in film allowed for a new montage to be formed which was able to grant further meaning to films. Bazin talked about how this transition allowed for the director to serve as an artist and author as well which means that overall films were turned into more of an art form than every before. Bazin explains that the visual aspects can be categorized as plastic and as mis-en-scenes. I personally did not really grasp why the first category was called plastic. When Bazin was talking about cinematic techniques I found it very interesting because creating associative montages by using superimposition creates implicit meanings through making unreal things appear real on the screen.

Wilder Interview and Auteur Theory

PETER WOLLEN:
I found Peter Wollen’s idea that all of Hawk’s films could be placed into two categories very compelling. These two categories are “adventure dramas or crazy comedies.” I found myself smiling when reading his description of male heroes in Hawk’s dramas. Wollen seemed to be spot on in describing the stereotypical male hero; cast away from society, living in isolation with only the company of a few of his very  exclusive friends .They don’t make a fuss about anything and hardly take credit for any of their heroic actions. I also didn’t realize how many genres Hawks covered. The ones mentioned are westerns, gangsters, war films, thrillers, comedies and even biblical epic. But again, all of these genres were able to be placed, according to Wollen, into one of the two categories I mentioned above.

I found myself unable to decipher why Wollen had a much more positive view of Ford’s work in comparison to Hawks. “My own view is that Ford’s work is much richer than that of Hawks and that this is revealed by a structural analysis; it is the richness of the shifting relations between antinomies in Ford’s work that makes him a great artist, beyond being simply an undoubted auteur.” (pg.599) I didn’t find that he made a point clear enough as to what component he is comparing in evaluating the richness of any given film.

When considering auteur theory it is important to note that it takes a group of films from one director and analyses its structure. With that said, in order to use this theory, one must have a plethora of films that can be examined. A director of one film, no matter how great it is, must have more so that this “artist’s” structure can be used for analysis. The structure of any given director must be compared over many of their films.. there needs to be a large sample. I found the link that Gillian provided to be quite helpful in having a more concrete understanding of what auteur theory really is.


INTERVIEW:
I really enjoyed reading the interviews between Crowe and Wilder because it is so easy to forget the amount of decision making that goes into the making of a film. I found it really interesting that he said that he wrote Barbra Stanwyk’s part specifically for her in Double Indemnity. I always assumed that characters were developed before they were casted. When asked about Audrey Hepburn I appreciated his modern reference to Julia Roberts. While appreciating her as an actress he makes a point to say that there will never be another Audrey Hepburn . I found it truly fascinating to hear all about what goes into decision making for all of a directors films. Hearing him speak about casting, finding proper apartments to be shot in, mistakes that were made ect… it made films seem like so much more of a process than I had previously perceived and this is due to the personal touch that Wilder was able to give to this experience.

Wilder Interview

It is always fun to read interviews with directors who have worked with iconic actors and actresses, because you feel privileged to be privy to such 'insider information' about people, like Audrey Hepburn. Also, the interview mentions two of the movies we have watched in class, Double Indemnity and Some Like It Hot. Double Indemnity is one of the films I've liked most this semester. It's interesting to note that many actors didn't want to take the lead role because it was too dark. Also, that Fred McMurray actually did comedy mostly, before this film. Because the film is very dramatic, however I though he did a very good job in the film.

I was surprised at how nonchalant Wilder seemed when he mentioned the deaths of certain people such as Paul Douglas, although I guess because he was 90 at the time of this interview, the shock and pain of these peoples' death would have subsided. Also, I was intrigued about the part where he discussed why he chose to shoot Some Like it Hot in Black and White instead of color. I would think that everyone would want to shoot in color because it was the newest technology, but that just shows you how personal preferences differ among people. This article was enjoyable to read because it gave an insiders' perspective into the world of Classic Hollywood Cinema, which is a world I don't know much about, but am learning more and more of through this class.

Auteur Theory

In many of the articles that we read for this class, movies and filmmakers that I know nothing about are discussed which makes it hard to comprehend what the article is trying to say. After reading the article I looked up what the definition of auteur theory was, and I actually did get a sense of the meaning from the article because it talked about directors and the recurring style, themes, and motifs that are used across several of their films.

The article discussed the director Howard Hawks, and his auteur style, however, in my opinion, the movie of his that we watched in class, The Big Sleep, didn't fit into any of the motifs that he listed. One interesting thing that I liked was when he said that men are the women's prey in his films. The character of Vivianne in The Big Sleep kind of fits this description and at the same time doesn't. She does scheme, and she is very flirty with Marlowe's character, but at the same time she acts vulnerable towards him and lets him command many of the scenes in which they are featured together. After reading this article I understand the general concept of an auteur, and how a director's style can permeate through the films he chooses to make.

Auteur Theory

I thought the concept of the auteur theory in general was very interesting. A film can basically pose a piece of art and the director is the artist but this can be confused with the director as metteurs en scene. I thought Wollen's example of Alfred Hitchcock made this differentiation clear and really allowed me to see how he has established himself as an auteur. I found an article that made the distinction more clear if anyone wants to follow up on these terms...it provides a simple explanation with more clear examples. http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A22928772

I also very much enjoyed reading the interview between Crowe and Wilder. I always find it interesting to know what happened behind the scenes of a movie or what happened before it was shot because just as the audience, we solely see the end result. I sometimes forget that there can be drama before actually shooting especially when trying to cast. Just because I've seen Double Indemnity, I found it particularly interesting when Wilder was describing the directions he gave to Stanwyck. I wonder if what we know about Wilder from this interview would qualify him as an auteur or a metteur en scene?

Auteur Theory

I found this article very interesting as well. Just as the Billy Wilder interview made me want to see more Billy Wilder films, this article made me want to watch more Howard Hawks movies. I think the only work of his I've seen is The Big Sleep.

I was impressed with how many genres Hawks has made films in - westerns, thrillers, sci-fi, musicals, etc, and also impressed by the author's observation that all of these films fall into one of two categories, they're all either adventure dramas or crazy comedies.

You would think that being of the same director, all the films would share some basic elements, but what the article pointed out was actually the opposite. Hawks' adventure dramas have characteristics that are in direct opposition to the characteristics of his crazy comedies. His adventure dramas feature strong, individualistic men and portray women as outsiders that can never really become part of the group. Conversely his comedies feature weak men who are dominated by women.

Similarly, Ford's films all involve dichotomies between wilderness and civilization, and between nomads and settlers.

I thought Renoir's way of putting it was very interesting, that the auteur essentially makes one film over his whole life and it is only in the context of this one big film that each individual film can be fully understood.

As with several of the other articles, I found the fact that the last sentence of every page was cut off to be extremely frustrating.

Billy Wilder interview

I really enjoyed reading this interview, in fact I'd have to say it's my favorite of all the articles we've read for this class. Although it was also the longest article, I found it very easy and compelling to read through and probably spent less time on it than I did on some of the short articles. Of all the Billy Wilder films mentioned, I've only seen Double Indemnity and Sunset Boulevard, and while reading the interview I found myself wanting to see some of the others, particularly The Apartment.
I thought it was interesting how Wilder denied intentionally creating some of the things that other people interpret as major elements of his films. For instance, he said that in Double Indemnity he was not influenced by German filmmakers, did not try to do anything striking with the lighting, and did not light Barbara Stanwyck any differently than anyone else. Perhaps some of these decisions then were made by the cinematographer and lighting crew rather than Wilder himself.
My favorite part of the article was when Wilder explained how people how compliment him on his black and white film Some Like It Hot will say they liked the color photography if he brings it up. Very funny how something that seems like such a major part of a movie is so easily forgotten or misremembered.

Bazin states that the silent film had reached its peak. Sound has given a re birth of a new cinema. Bazin breaks up representation into two categories, those that relate to the plastics of the image and those that relate to the resources of the montage. Plastics includes the styles, makeup, performance, lighting, framing and composition. Montage gave birth to film as an art, setting it apart from photography.

Bazin also talks about how montage can be invisible. Scenes were broken down just for one purpose, namely, to analyze an episode according to the material or dramatic logic of the scene. Also, Montage by attraction, which is reinforcing the meaning of one image by association with another image. I understand this through text, but would be helpful to see an example through film to fully understand the concept.
Through the evolution of editing since the advent of sound, the films based on plastic were “expressionist or symbolist” and the new form of story telling is “analytic and dramatic” There is a clear difference between film with or without sound and the viewers reaction to those.

Bazin

In the very beginning of the article, Bazin asks, “did the years from 1928 to 1930 a actually witness the birth of a new cinema?” (pg.155) The answer to this, as Bazin describes, is absolutely. What the rest of the article speaks about is the effect of dialogue on the film industry that was at one time silent. In bringing up language in film, Bazin starts talking about montage. “it was montage that gave birth to film an as art, setting it apart from mere animated photography, in short, creating a language.” (pg.156) Montage is explained as being able to provide meaning to certain films such as providing the viewer with a better sense of an amount of time going by. The images in montage gained meaning from being together in a sequence and would lack meaning if shown individually. Bazin suggests that montage is used to show the viewer what the director wants you to think about. “the meaning is not in the image, it is in the shadow of the image projected by montage onto the field of consciousness of the spectator.” ) pg.158)

After discussing the silent films, Bazin has a section entitled, “The evolution of Editing since the Advent of Sound.” (pg.161) Here, Bazin lays out how editing changed over the years due to films switching over from silent to sound. Bazin then touches on montage again and its role in films since sound became incorporated. Later in the article Bazin says, “it seems to be that the decade from 1940 to 1950 marks a decisive step forward in the development of the language of the film” (pg.166) It is then discussed how the directors role has changed since language in film and how the director now serves as both a director, an artist, and an author as well.

Bazin article

At the beginning of this article, the author broke down the visual components of a movie into two categories: mis-en-scene, which for some unexplained reason he called "plastics" (maybe because it involves physically changeable elements?) and montage. The first two types of montage he described (parallel montage and accelerating montage) made perfect sense, but the third type, "montage by attraction" seemed very vague to me. His explanation by example of "the milk overflowing" did not help to clarify this concept for me. The author then went on to talk about the creation of meaning through juxtaposition of images, referencing Kuleshov's first experiment. He used these examples to argue that cinema had plenty of ways to express its point before sound came along. I think the author's next point was that with the arrival of sound, film changed to become more "realistic" in terms of style. However, he then seemed to contradict his earlier statement that cinema had everything it needed before sound, by saying that after the addition of sound, the technical requirements for cinema were all available.

In the middle of the article, the author talked about certain cinematic techniques, such as associative montage and trick shots like superimposition, falling by the wayside due to the new trend towards realism. The montage technique was challenged at this time by the deep focus shot, as seen in the still shots of Citizen Kane and the panning shots of Renoir's films. According to the author, shots with greater depth of focus are more realistic, and require more active participation from the audience. However, the use of deep focus shots did not negate the importance of montage entirely.

In the final three paragraphs, the author tried his best to state his thesis, though his language was at times confusing. As far as I could tell, his position was that the arrival of film sound worked well with realistic films but not with those films that relied heavily on montage, metaphors and symbols. With sound, the author seemed to say, metaphor created by montage became superfluous.

The thing I found most frustrating about this article was the way whole sentences seemed to be cut off between the bottom of one page and the top of the next. This made it very difficult to read and to follow the author's logic.

Bazin - The Evolution of Language

I can easily apply Bazin's article to Battle of Potemkin and Man with a Movie Camera. To desribe film language, Bazin writes, "Through the contents of the image and the resources of montage, the cinema has at its disposal a whole arsenal of means whereby to impose its interpretation of an event on the spectator" (158). Both of these silent films exhibit montage to illicit a certain meaning and emotion within the viewer. To describe this language he also writes, "But these examples suffice to reveal, at the very heart of the silent film, a cinematographic art the very opposite of that which has been identified as 'cinema par excellence,'a language the semantic and syntactical unit of which is in no sense the Shot; in which the image is evaluated not according to what it adds to reality but what it reveals of it" (159). This description stood out to me because the camera shots used in both Bottle of Potemkin and Man with a Movie Camera depict people's emotions more than a film with sound. The images without any soundtrack leave more of an impression on the viewer and makes it seem as though the camera is capturing a real moment rather than having a fake soundtrack recorded over the shot. In other words, the most important point that I took away from Bazin is that silent films along with montage editing creates its own language allowing the viewer to interpret a metaphor and symbol in exchange for the illusion of objective presentation.

Bazin

The very end of this article provides the clearest idea of Bazin's point and I immediately understood everything better. Bazin says that "in the silent days, montage evoked what the director wanted to say; in the editing of the 1938, it described it" (167). To take Man With A Movie Camera as an example, 70 minutes of Vertov's experimental documentary montage implicitly ask the questions "do you get it?" and "what do you think about what I've shown you?" Honestly, it's not easy to watch. I have been raised on descriptive Hollywood storytelling. Watching Man With a Movie Camera was more like trying to dissect a cubist painting than analyzing a film. It can be confusing but thought provoking as well. The camera functions as the tool for pointing to what the filmmaker wants you to think about.

A well made Hollywood film, in contrast, shows you exactly what it wants to tell you. You know what the story is because there is a very clear one taking place in front of you in any scene. Every single thing in the frame is intentionally constructed and included. Every thing has its function and describes something. Bazin makes perfect sense when he says that "the film-maker is no longer the competitor of the painter and the playwright, he is, at last, the equal of the novelist" (167).

One recent film that came to mind for me when reading this film was Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life. Thinking back on it now it seems sort of like a combination of montage and description.

Andre Bazin's "The Evolution of the Language of Cinema"

I knew that movies nowadays had more differentiating them from silent films than technological advantages and more complex storylines. I just didn’t know what that other difference was until this class. Bazin’s article is about form. After reflecting on the films we’ve viewed in class, I can better understand Bazin’s description of the evolution of the language of cinema. Bazin describes the film form of the silent era as “expressionist” or “symbolistic” due to its mise-en-scene and montage by attraction while the new form is described as “analytic” and “dramatic.” The most obvious example of symbolistic montage comes from Potemkin. The three successive images of the lion statues (lying down, rising and alert) represented the people’s uprising. A ready example of dramatic montage (I’m pretty sure) would be the parallel montage during Angier’s Transported Man on the night of his “death” in The Prestige. “[I]n the silent days, montage evoked what the director wanted to say; in the editing of 1938, it described it. Today we can say that at last the director writes in film.”

Schatz Article

When I began reading Thomas Schatz's "From Hollywood Genres: Film Genre and the Genre Film," I have to admit that my initial reaction was 'not another article defining what a genre is.' However, after reading it, I think that he actually introduced some new and interesting thoughts into genre studies. A film genre is a formula of interweaving characters and cinematic components that become repeated and expanded upon throughout time so that a clear grouping of films emerges. However, as Schatz notes, the genre is susceptible to change, as he explains through a grammatical analogy. While a sentence's grammatical structure can be skewed into incorrect ways, the structure is still absolute and static. In contrast, a slight tweak to a genre film has the ability to change the entire structure that governs it.

Another point I thought was important to Schatz's overall argument was when he states, "from this observation emerges a preliminary working hypothesis: the determining, identifying feature of a film genre is its cultural context, its community of interralated character types whose attitudes, values, and actions flesh out dramatic conflicts inherent within the community." In other words, Schatz states that the community within which the action of a genre film occurs is defined by contemporary culture, and the interweaving relationships and values and characters within which leads to conflict.

The one problem I did have with this article is that it broke down the form of a genre film too much with its discussion of the arena and how the effect of external stimuli on the characters effects the overall nature of the film. After reading this section I felt that every genre film really employs the same narrative structure, and is only different due to slight adjustments of the "grammar structure." This made me feel a bit disenchanted with the idea of genre films as a whole.

Genre

I thought the comparison between language studies and genre studies was very interesting. It is true that the audience's response to any given film or set of films helps to shape and define film categories and refine the rules of cinematic genres in general, the way that a language is shaped by the responses of the people who speak it. It is also true that as with language, communication via film relies on shared knowledge, and it is this shared film knowledge that enables us to group films together and create genres. Yet unlike the rules of language, the rules of cinema can change rapidly, meaning that genres can evolve and new genres can develop as new films and groups of films emerge and become popular.

The three levels of inquiry (characteristics shared by all genre films, characteristics shared by the films within a given genre and characteristics that set one genre film apart) seemed like a useful way of looking at things. I also thought the description of genre as defined by "a network of characters, actions, values and attitudes" was a good one, since location, plot and subject matter are certainly too narrow categories that don't always apply. Additionally I liked the concept of determinate space (where the plot action starts with some kind of entrance and ends with some kind of exit) vs. indeterminate space (where the conflict revolves around the characters trying to find their place in the existing community).

Although I certainly felt as though I understood genre before reading this article, the author brought up many new ways of looking at and understanding it that I would never have thought of.

Film Genre

Genre films can be described colloquially by the typical phrase "I know them when I see them." Films of a particular genre are not identical, but they all have the same feel to them. There are a few reasons for that. They follow any number of conventions that are typical of the genre they can be categorized. The characters may be have certain distinguishable similarities, the setting may be basically the same, the conflicts play out in the same way and come from the same struggles, and the end, as Schatz says, unless otherwise noted, is predictable based on the genre.

The audience has certain expectations based on what is presented to them. If a film is set on the frontier, and the protagonist is John Wayne, the film is a Western and they already have a feeling of how the plot will develop. However, it is not accurate to say "if you've seen one Western, you've seen them all." Genre films abide by the same conventions, but that does not make them the same movie. The directors and crews of genre films can always play with these conventions to make the film different, if only slightly, from another film of the same genre. The inner conflicts and thematic struggles may be the same, the characters may be similar, and the setting can be identical, but the story can always be different. Based on what the audience is given, they will probably know or figure out quickly how the conflicts will be resolved and how the movie will end in general, if not exactly.

The basic idea is that genre films are very accessible. the values discussed in them are easily understood and displayed in obvious ways. An audience will always have a basic understanding of what is going on, and that enables the directors of genre films in a number of ways with the "range of expression" Schatz talks about. In this way, while a film may be typically Western or Horror or Gangster, the director can craft the film in such a way that the audience's idea of a genre film can change, if slightly. This way, over time, conventions may change, expectations may be altered, and the genre can take on new meanings. I think this is a progressive movement because in order to be considered a genre film, the film must represent the genre well, so you cannot set the movie at the OK Corral and then do nothing else that's identified as Western and still call it a Western.

Film Genre vs. Genre Film

I thought this article was interesting because it covered a generally well-known topic but put it in a different perspective. Initially, I was getting confused between the two terms because they can so easily be interchanged. I found myself losing my train of thought forgetting what each was. However, what I gathered from the article is that film genre and genre film are proved to be two different components of film by Schatz. In order to understand what we originally thought to be film genre, I thought Schatz’s analogy of language was interesting and useful. He explains, “As a system, English grammar is not meaningful either historically or in socially specific terms. It is manipulated by a speaker to make meaning. A film genre, conversely, has come into being precisely because of its cultural significance as a meaningful narrative system…a genre film represents an effort to reorganize a familiar, meaningful system in an original way” (693). In other words, although there are static aspects of film, there are elements that allow us to renegotiate the generic guidelines of what we consider to be film genre. One aspect of his argument that I found to be clear and one that I was able to make sense of was his discussion on how film genres are constantly refined depending on the social context or events that were occurring the time the film came out. Different social contexts or technological advances can change how audiences view a film. I was able to understand this point because I related it to Bordwell and Thompson’s definition of symptomatic meaning.

Schatz's Film Genre and the Genre Film

Schatz’s article makes many interesting and valid points about the relationship between film and genre, such as that genre film constitutes an attempt to restructure a “familiar system,” one recognizable and significant to viewers, in an original manner. This and one of Schatz’s other statements—that genre is “a range of expression for filmmakers” and “a range of experience for viewers”—from page 695, made me think of John Carpenter’s Halloween. Although Schatz doesn’t specifically address the horror genre, I think this film fits into his general notion of the layout of genre films’ plot structure, for the most part.

Where Carpenter runs with Schatz’s notion of genre as a “range of expression” is with the ending of the film. It plays with the viewer’s expectations of the horror genre in that it seems to at first provide a resolution in the form of Dr. Loomis’s shooting of the masked murderer and then reveals this “resolution” to be false. The camera at first suggests the killer is dead via a shot of him lying on the ground before revealing that he has disappeared via another shot of the same spot, this time empty. The narrative ends on this note and thus complicates the idea of the celebration of the “well-ordered community” that Schatz maintains the genre film does with its plot structure. 

Film Genre and Genre Film

I thought that, for the most part, this piece was almost too straightforward. It offered a lot of common knowledge but did provoke me to think a little more about a handful of concepts I hadn't previously considered in depth.

I consider myself a fan of the horror genre. Particularly after watching Halloween last night, I was prompted to think of how Carpenter's classic fit into the notion of a genre film. Halloween is undeniably a staple of the horror genre, featuring its fundamental components (plays on the innate fears of the audience, features an evil terrorizing agent and helpless victim, startles the audience with unexpected physical action). But it also fulfills Schatz's ideas of how "individual genre films seem to have the capacity to affect the genre" (693). Halloween was one of the original "slasher" films and its critical and commercial popularity helped establish a niche in the horror genre for the knife-wielding serial killer. Halloween also helped give rise to the trope of an innocent heroine--for decades following Halloween's release, it was common practice for the teenagers who were depicted as engaging in drugs and sex to be killed off while the more chaste character (usually female) survives.

Schatz mainly focuses on the Western and musical genres, and I would love to hear the rest of the class's perspective on genres we've approached more in class. I realize we determined that film noir was more of a movement than a genre, but I feel like there could be interesting parallels made between the reading and the noir films we watched.

Film Genre And The Genre Film- Thomas Schatz

So far, this was my favorite article to read and increased my knowledge about a concept I thought I knew all about. In Film Genre and the Genre Film, Thomas Schatz does a great job at explaining those two concepts and providing examples to make them more comprehensible. In describing the connection between the two terms Schatz says, “…changes in cultural attitudes, new influential genre films, the economics of the industry, and so forth, continually refine and film genre.” (pg. 691) This shows that film genre is used to describe a broad subject in which one could group together genre films… which are films following the rules of any defined film genre.  To further explain the concept, Schatz uses the analogy of English Grammar and refers back to this analogy throughout the article to reinforce his ideas.  “Our shared knowledge of the rules of any film genre enables us to understand and evaluate individual genre films, just as our shared knowledge of English Grammar enables me to write this sentence and you to interpret it.” (pg. 693) This is a very interesting idea and suggests that in the same way we all have basic knowledge of the English language and can there for communicate with one another, we also all have shared knowledge of what makes a film genre the specific genre it is; allowing us to share a basic interpretation of any given genre film.

Much of the article discusses the importance in understanding that genres are based on its cultural context. Schatz suggests a hypothesis; “the determining identifying feature of a film genre is its cultural context, its community of interrelated character types whose attitudes, values, and actions flesh out dramatic conflicts inherent within that community.” (ph. 695)  He then discusses Hollywood’s ability to orchestrate such genres and says  “a genre, then, represents a range of expression for filmmakers and a range of experience for the viewers.” (pg. 695) Along with cultural context comes the generic characters that make up the different communities. Schatz describes these characters as “the physical embodiment of an attitude, a style, a world view, of a predetermined and essentially cultural posture.” (pg. 696) He uses many examples such as cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, guy or doll and so on. Each character represents basic cultural values that viewers can all understand.

Generic Characters to embody certain cultural values and norms allow us all to identify with the genre and have a shared basic understanding for the context. “…the genre film celebrates our collective sensibilities” (pg. 699) When walking into a genre film such as a western, a comedy, a romance ect… all of the viewers are entering the film with a shared knowledge of what cultural context will be portrayed, we all enter with subconscious understanding before knowing what it is even about. This could be brought back to the grammar example in that we all approach reading an article with the same basic understanding of English grammar which allows us all to read it the same way yet perhaps interpret it uniquely. In the end, Schatz discusses the use of a generic hero in films and the ways in which they are used to mask solving an unsolvable conflict to leave the viewers satisfied.  Schatz did a wonderful job at providing examples to explain what makes up film genre and genre film and how the two concepts are both static and yet open to changes over time.

Eisenstein

I found this reading to be very informative and helpful to my understanding of the impact different editing techniques can have on the viewers understanding of what is going on in a film. While watching the Battle Ship Potemkin it was clear to the class that this was a much choppier film than the previous ones we have watched. I had not yet read Eisenstein’s article so I was unable to identify this as montage editing but after reading the article it all makes more sense. The choppiness of the shots is used to show the different emotions of the many people in the film and the overall impact the events were having on the community as a whole. In the article there are screen shots of the Odessa Steps scene in the Battleship Potemkin. I immediately refer back to this scene when contemplating Eisenstein’s theory because its perfectly captures the use of montage to make the viewer fee anxious and hectic; letting the viewers feel what the characters in the scene were feeling. Montage is not a smooth process and often is used to show such feelings as chaos; this article explained this concept very well.

Eisenstein

Eisenstein described montage as the "combining shots that are depictive, single in meaning, neutral in content - into intellectual contexts and series" (129). Thinking of each shot as a cell, or a part of a bigger picture, really shows how film has really progressed into a serious art form whereas before shots were much longer. These compilations of shots not only define the space but also add a visual depth and further understanding of the characters and the story. Potemkin really utilizes picture montages because for example, in the action scenes, the shots were increasingly shorter and really developed character expressionism. Eisenstein talks about the “quality of intervals that determines the pressure of the tension and also talks about the inaudibility of certain intervals, which is definitely very apparent in Potemkin for adding to the mood of that particular sequence of film.

Eisenstein

Although I really liked all his comparisons about Japanese characters, haiku, and kabuki theater, Eisenstein's point didn't seem to make itself until partway through the essay. Suddenly I understood his unique theories about the idea of montage: that a combination of different shots played quickly one after another can have more of an impact than traditional cinema methods.

This is something that I noticed during the movie but had no understanding of until after I read the article. The quick cut in the shots from the woman with the bloody face and the lions after the Potemkin's cannon's fire. Without seeing all the action the viewer is able to make assumptions about what happens. The hectic nature of this editing did a great job creating a frantic mood of chaos in the scene.

Eistenstein: Cinematography and montage

I was a fan of the way Eisenstein dissected montage. His initial discussion of Japanese theater and cinematography was an interesting direction to take. I particularly liked the idea of Japanese art as depicting parts of a whole and the later analysis of montage fragments: "the more differentiated they are the more abstract they become, provoking no more than a certain association" (12). I generally prefer these separate shots and emotional associations to a murder depicted as a whole scene; though I'd like to discuss in class what he meant by "materializing the idea, the impression, of murder through a free accumulation of association matter" (12).

I found this article to be very interesting. The concept of the montage through hieroglyphics was something new with the idea of drawing “two hieroglyphs of the simplest series to be regarded not as their sum, but as their product.” The viewpoint of conflict in contrast with the cell of montage was something new to me. Conflict with the shot and frame as well as conflict between matter and viewpoint, spatial nature, event and temporal nature and optical experience. Relating some of the concepts to Potemkin, the two shots we are presented do show a production of dynamizaation in space. It is interesting to see the two shots separately, without seeing the movement in between. The images shown in the article definitely help to understand the authors points. This made the article more understandable and easier to relate to .

Eisenstein

I found this article still a little difficult to understand, yet easier to comprehend than what we have previously read. The main point of Eisenstein's article was his explanation of the montage. I thought it was really interesting how he used Japanese culture and applied some of these aspects to the concept of cinematography. For example, he explains, "It is exactly what we do in cinema, combining shots that are depictive, single in meaning, neutral in content, into intellectual concepts and series (129). He later continues to explain his opinion on the concept saying that it's unrolling an idea with the help of single shots and it comes together by combining independent shots. If I'm interpreting this correctly, I was able to see this exemplified in Potemkin. There were a lot of single shots that would separated by other scenes/shots, then repeated again in a single frame. I especially began to notice this with the camera shots of the ocean on either side of the boat as it approached the shore as well as in the fourth part when the ship though enemies were approaching. There were several shots straight on of the cannon. The camera would go back to the other boat then repeat the same shot of the cannon. If I'm interpreting this correctly, I would find it interesting to go back to the other films and see where this takes place and if it has the same effect.

Eisenstein

Usually I read the assigned article before the Monday night class so I can look for things that are discussed while watching the film, but that was not the case this week. While watching Battleship Potemkin I noticed how the shots together seemed choppy, and the amount of them there were. Later, in reading the article, I understood that the movie did not have the normal flow of shots because Eisenstein looked at montage differently than classic Hollywood cinema did. The article discusses his idea of montage as shots 'in conflict.' One quote that I felt was appropriate for how the movie looked to my eye was "if montage is to be compared with something, then a phalanx of montage pieces, of shots, should be compared to the series of explosions of an internal combustion engine, driving forward its automoblie or tractor..." (134).

The article includes screenshots from the "Stairs of Odessa" scene, and this is a perfect example of how the rapid succession of varied shots creates the sense of pandemonium in the audience member as the people on the screen are feeling. There are all types of shots that are utilized: close-ups of faces, body parts, long shots, medium shots, tracking shots, all jumbled together to create a feeling of chaos. Eisenstein's montage technique is utilized throughout the whole movie, which is probably the reason that I noticed it while I was watching the movie, not knowing it was actually something he purposely set out to do because that was his idea of how montage should be.

Article

I found this article slightly easier to understand than the past few weeks. Conceptually at the beginning I had sort of a difficult time understanding his pre-film analogies. As the article moved on though, I liked his emphasis on the cuts themselves between two images are almost as important as the image itself. He referenced a scene in the movie we will view tonight, Potemtikin, and said that a clean face and a bloody face were the frame transition. The viewer could see, and presume what happened just by the cut and not actually even have to see the action. So in a sense that is Cinematography. The way the images are arrayed with each other to make the scene cohesive or not so. Einstein did a good job of using frame examples to explain his points and like a few others have mentioned I liked his analysis of Kabuki theater to help explain his points.

Eisenstein

Montage is "combining shots that are depictive, single in meaning, neutral in content - into intellectual contexts and series" (129). It's new to me to consider montage as something beyond a difficult process made fun by taking days worth of events and rushing through them to the sound of 80s music. Clearly, it's much more vital and substantial than the basic concept I already held. What I was thinking of is a montage, not montage in general. If Andrew's right, and Eisenstein created/named the concept, it definitely comes through in this reading. I found that while some things were beyond my reach, I have a fairly legitimate understanding of what Eisenstein describes. The illustrations and explanations themselves were thorough and comprehensive enough for me to understand the concept of singular images and aspects being put together in varying ways to create a larger sensical scene or picture. The part that helped me grasp this reading the most was the comparison between the Western concept of drawing to the Japanese. You can try to squeeze all the information you want into one frame, but the picture could be better when separated and reassembled, giving you a more comprehensive understanding of what is put in front of you. The use of montage for dramatic effect is what puts a viewer directly in a scene. The director can emphasize what he needs to in the fashion he so desires in order the evoke the emotions he so chooses.

Segei Eisenstein

I thought this article was fascinating, especially (like the post before me) the discussion of the Japanese approach to art and hieroglyphs. His comparison of western and Japanese art is interesting in that he discusses how Western art focuses on portraying an entire object such as a cherry tree branch. In contrast, the Japanese teach art by focusing on parts of the whole, such as the pupil cuts.

Another thing I noticed is that Sergei Eisenstein LOVES metaphors. I felt as if a large portion of his article was reiterating metaphors he had already established. The majority of it could have been summed up on page 132 in which he essentially defines montage (a practice if I'm not mistaken he created). It begins by stating that "Absolute realism is by no means the correct form of perception," it is just one of many ways of conceiving action. Another way is through montage, which is similar to brick laying. Several bricks alone mean nothing, but when put together they make a wall. Metaphorically, this means that random shots alone mean nothing, but when edited properly they can create a sense of time and place, and establish a scenes plot.

Bellour Reading

Like everyone else, I had a very difficult time with this reading. I felt that the way he wrote this was actually more conducive to a lecture based discussion rather than a paper. He focuses solely on a 12 shot segment within the film "The Big Sleep," and makes the unfortunate error of discussing it as if the reader is sitting watching the scene with a remote to pause it at ever instance he wants to discuss. As a result the reader becomes lost in the unfamiliar. While I have seen the film more than once, I still have no idea which scene he is actually talking about. One side note that he makes however, I did find interesting because I noticed it upon watching it as well. Bellour notes that "Hawks [the director], we might note, is one of the Hollywood Directors who has most profoundly reoriented the Hollywood tradition of the woman-object". While watching the film I had noticed that it utilized a significant amount of front a back lighting to not only highlight women's faces, but also make their hair glow. Not only this, but their characters were also highly sexualized, which had seemed unusual to me considering this is not a modern film.

Eisenstein articles

I thought Eisenstein's comparision of writing (in Japanese hieroglyphs) to montage (in filmmaking) was genius. Of course we all know that putting two words together creates a third and different meaning, and so it makes sense that the same happens when two images are put together, but I had simply never thought of it that way before. I also had never thought of the distinction he goes on to make in the second article, saying that while words on a page are perceived as one being next to the other, images on a screen are perceived one on top of the other.

I liked the idea of viewing many things that we would call formal elements as "cinematographic conflicts within the frame," for example the conflict of "pieces of darkness and pieces of lightness" where we might just say "lighting," although some of these conflicts mentioned in the second article were less clear to me.

In general found the second article more difficult than the first, but I still felt like I got something out of it. Overall I enjoyed Eisenstein's accessible writing style and use of easy to understand comparisons complete with illustrations to make his points. The only thing I found truly frustrating about this article was the way the pages got progressively more cut off at the bottoms.