a blog

Media Studies 341W blog 9

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrudman100 at 2:59 am on Friday, December 3, 2010

There are reasons, even though they are socially frowned upon, for why people enjoy to stalk another.  It’s the idea of voyeurism, which is the practice of spying on another.  There’s something that happens in a person that gives them such pleasure when they are intently watching another without them knowing.  It’s the excitement of a secret that they enjoy the most.  The need to know all about a person, and to discover their deepest and most darkest secrets from a hidden view is mentally stimulating and gives them all the more reason to be excited because they are the ones with the secret now.  They have the control and the power over the other because they are hidden while the other is being exposed.  In film, the audience acts as the stalker in this situation.  The actors on the screen have been filmed without anyone watching, that they know of, and when the movie is screened there are tons of people watching their every move, and their every secret. 

Visual pleasure and feminism within the movie world go hand in hand.  Laura Mulvey spoke about this in her essay and seems to make sense that the rise of feminism within a movie is important.  It stimulates most of the male population and takes them by storm.  It entrances them and keeps them coming back for more which is why it has become a popular subject in a movie.  Having the main female character seen as strongwilled, or withholding the power creates a sense of euphoria in the male audience.  It also appeals to the women as well because it shows them that women can gain power as well as the men, that they too can rule over everyone else.  In the movie “Psycho” Alfred Hitchcock casts his main female role to be an adultrist who in the end steals money and runs away with it.  She then tries to make the right decision and bring the money back, but can’t because she is murdered by a psychotic man who suffers from multipersonality disorder.  The place she is murdered is a sex appeal in itself.  She is in the shower when she is killed and she is naked.  What can be more stimulating  to the male audience? What can be more femanistic?  Hitchcock makes his female characters out to be used and taken advantage of.  They are seen as the pretty main character whom in the end is not needed and given up.

Media Studies 341W blog 8

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrudman100 at 1:14 am on Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The role of the spectator is simply to see how they view the story in the film.  How they psychoanalyze a film is to see how successful it was.  How the person is feeling after the film is a huge testament to how the film’s story came across to them.  When Baudry relates the role of the spectator in a film, to the role of a spectator to his/her own dream there is a similarity.  A dream can be taken in so many different ways.  The person who dreams it may not know what it means.  He/she may need to confide in others to figure out what the real meaning is.  A person could have a dream about being in a crowded room and not being able to move or get out of the situation, so he slowly drowns in this sea of people.  This could mean so many things.  It is up to the spectator to take his role and analyze the true meaning of it.  It may not be the right meaning, but it will be to the spectator.

Media Studies 341W blog 7

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrudman100 at 1:07 am on Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The methodology that Woods had about “return of the repressed” is very important to incorporate in horror films.  The idea of the audience watching a film that in other words is “forbidden” is a great way of showing them what a repressed image would be.  Their subconcious comes to life in a horror film, they tell stories that aren’t deemed t ofit in a normal society, so we result to seeing it on screen because it is all fake.  Anything can happen in a movie, because all bets are off.  A persons subconcious lets loose and thrives on fiction.

In the movie “Psycho” they tell a story of a derranged man who suffers from a multi-personality disorder.  It has haunted him in the past and now has taken over his life.  When a woman on the run stops on the side of the road at his motel, we start to see his repressed image come to life.  He’s sort of mysterious in a way in the scene where the motel keeper and the woman are having dinner in his office.  He asks all these strange questions, and seems a bit odd in doing so.  We later find out that he is a mass murderer desguised as a little old lady.  He blames his misfortunes on his deceased mother, which really is just his alter ego.  This story works perfectly with the idea of the “return of the repressed”.  It is a story that is so forbidden in todays society that its only way of living would be in a horror film.

Media Studies 341W blog 6

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrudman100 at 2:40 am on Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Titanic is arguably a horribly written movie that only relies on its technological innovation instead of emphasis on the story itself.  Be that as it may, there are so many scenes and lines from the film that have stayed with each of its viewers (and even people who haven’t viewed it) for years and years.  Using the concept of semiotics and how the culture and nature of a film relates to an audience member, Titanic has matched this idea on every account.  There are scenes from Titanic that have burned themselves into the minds of society.  They stick to us like they are a part of us and a part of our culture and maybe even childhood.  When I was in elementary school, Titanic came out in theaters.  It wasn’t technically a movie that was age appropriate for a nine year old, but it impacted my age group so much.  For years after the movie, whenever someone said “I’m the king of the world!” it was well known that it was a famous line that came from Titanic.  The scene where Jack Dawson (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) is on he edge of the boat and screams this line out to the sea ahead leaves us with its memory as vividly as when it was recorded for the first time.  Another scene in particular that is well known from this film is when Jack and Rose are in the car on the ship engaging in sexual activities.  There’s a point in the scene where all you see on the window of the car is Rose’s hand making a print on the foggy glass, and letting it fall down slowly to make a streak coming off of the handprint.  As society we see two amazing actors engaging in sexual relations and this image of the hand on the window is what we are left with.  It burns itself into our minds and we are left to see this whenever we think of Titanic.

Media Studies 341W blog 5

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrudman100 at 2:28 am on Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Each movie star has their own image, their own persona.  They create a person within themselves in which their fans associate themselves with.  What I think Richard Dyer is trying to say about movie stars and their movie roles is that to create a person in a film that is opposite to who they really are in life, makes the role have so much more meaning.  Each role is a challenge to the actor/actress.  They have to take on a new persona, one that may help or destroy their image in real life.  Each film is a test to the actor.  They get to see what they are like as a different person, and if they are any good at it.  Once they tackle this task, they get to see how good of an actor they really are.  It’s important to the film as well because it gives the film so much more meaning.  Stars are only as good as they make themselves out to be.  They create these new people that attach themselves to the minds of every viewer that sees the film.  Everytime a person sees this star or hears of this star in real life, they associate themselves with their artistic roles, instead of the people who we (meaning society) make them out to be.  Society has their own way of viewing people, and has their own way of making people out to be the good or bad guy.  With the help of a good role in a film, the actor/actress can change the view society has on them.

One actor in particular that I can relate this topic to would be Angelina Jolie.  In real life, we see her as this woman who likes to adopt a lot of children and marry men who have recently just gotten out of a divorce.  When we think of her we also think of her husband Brad Pitt.  Brangelina as we like to call them.  They aren’t two different people to us.  They are seen to society as a power couple in the movie industry.  However, with the help of good roles given to them, we also see them in their artistic ability.  We see them in these roles and are reminded of these roles whenever their name pops up.  We separate them from the real world life, and connect them to these people who they have become on screen.

MedSt. 341W blog 4

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrudman100 at 2:12 am on Wednesday, November 17, 2010

        The genre of a film is basically the background to the storyline the writer/director creates.  Its the basic idea upon which the film builds itself and creates its own realm; its own fantastic and amazing individuality against all other films, even the ones that are within the same genre.  Most people see genre as just a category in which a film is placed in to let the audience know what kind of film they are about to see.  Altman is a man who took this idea and went to the next level.  A genre is not just a type of film, it is the entire film.  It has to do with the storyline and the types of cinematography that go into the film.  It is what makes the film what it is.  Each genre has many dynamic and innovative qualitities that are additives to the film and are what makes it so realistic.  Lighting and costumes are informative when it comes to genre.  They add to the supposedly subtle additive of the film.  They tell you what kind of setting the film has and what kind of mood it sets; for each genre is important in influencing their audience.

        One film in particular that reminds me of Altman’s reading about Semantics/Syntactics would be Avatar.  A new film directed and created by James Cameron that took him 30 years to create.  Because of the intricate use of his new technological program to create a fantasized and science fiction-esque world, the genre of the film takes on so much more meaning.  The genre no longer becomes just the background to the film, but the story of the film as well.  It takes part of how the film is created and how the audience reacts the film.  With the use of the new technology and its bright and lively colors, it creates a new level of a fantasy/sci-fi film.

Media Studies 341W blog 3

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrudman100 at 12:23 pm on Thursday, October 28, 2010

According to Sarris’ auteur theory, the director creates his story of the film he is directing.  He produces it in a way that only he knows and basically puts his own mark on the film.  The discussion we had in class about the auteur theory made me think of one director in particular.  This director is well known, and anyone who watches his films knows that he is the director to the film.  Tim Burton is a mastermind.  He creates art when he directs his films.  It is known, even at the moment when we see the poster to his films, that he is the one who directed it.  His films create a sense of fantasy, and artistic ability.  You can tell it’s a film of his because of certain traits that he uses in his films.  Two of his well known films are remakes of previous films.  ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’ , and most recently a remake of disney’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’.  These two films compared to their original directors are drastically different.  However, the fantasy world of both films are very similar when they are directed by the same director, Tim Burton.  His films have a sense of a fantasy acid trip.  They are not like other films in that they make real life seem like animation.  In both of these films, human characters are played by humans, but in reality they seem to be a lot like animated characters.  Another personal characteristic he brings to the film, is using the same actors in most of his films; in this case, two actors in particular.  Tim Burton uses Johnny Depp, and his girlfriend of many years Helena Bonham Carter.  I believe that using the same characters in a directors film is a part of the auteur theory.  Its a trademark that Tim Burton uses to let the public know that it is one of his own creations.

Media Studies 341W blog 2

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrudman100 at 12:10 am on Monday, September 20, 2010

Rudolph Arnheim approved of “The Gold Rush” on so many levels.  He agreed that it was a film of art because of its realistic abilities.  The placement of the camera, and the realness of the shack that they set the movie in.  The story came to life in the film because of the way the scenes were cut together.  They introduced each of the characters one at a time to show the audience who’s in the movie and what their purpose is.  Each shot had a meaning towards the story of the film, and it flowed in the right sense.

He became a big fan of Charlie Chaplin because he was all about the reality of the film.  He brought certain aesthetics and “real” space to the film which was in the eyes of Arnheim, just what he liked.

Media Studies 341W blog 1

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrudman100 at 11:55 pm on Sunday, September 19, 2010

   I do agree that a film has many different levels of consciousness, and reaches our psyche at different points.  When we’re watching a film, we don’t realize that some ideas are given to us through the film.  Subconsciously we hear these messages and they register in our brain so that later in life we already have the answer to a particular question.  We are aware that we are watching the movie, and learning things at the same time, however we don’t know that there are certain happenings of the movie that we ARE unaware of.  What David Weddle is trying to say is that when we sit down to watch a movie, we all become entranced even though we don’t know it, and I agree.

   Film theory to me is just an artform.  It is a point that is trying to be given to its audience, just in a different way.  It’s the same as a painting would have an effect on us.  We see the painting, but behind the colors that we see is a story that isn’t apparent to the naked eye.  In films, a movie is a story that we can follow and understand, but it is an artform of a new creation.  It is a new view on life that we’ve never seen before, and it happens to change our views in a subconscious way.


Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar