1.) Realism is being used to give the viewer the effect of actually being in Iraq and on the missions with the bomb squad. I think this give a more in depth feel of what it was actually like to be in Iraq and the actual dangers of the war in Iraq. I have always thought Iraq was one of the least dangerous wars. I always thought the soldiers never really saw much action in Iraq. This film showed me some of the dangers these soldiers faced on a daily basis whether it be from an enemy or themselves. You see how the soldiers didn't really know who there enemy was and had a tough time deciding who was. Also you see how the soldiers were greatly affected psychologically and how they couldn't adjust to life outside of the war.
2.) I think the biggest take away was the time of the class itself. If you could in later years get the class to be a full year, I think students could get more out of it. I think you should try and focus on eras. I think you should sit down and say that you are going to pick a movie based off of the early civilizations, the 1800's, the early and late 1900's, and more modern times. I think this could balance out the eras of the movies that you watch. I also think that you should take time and watch movies from the silent film era, early film, and modern film to see how it has changed. Also I think you should show some indie films and documentaries to show how film can be affected.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Monday, March 31, 2014
Documentary Film Blog
Question:
Nichols writes, "The fact that there is more than one mode of documentary film strongly suggests the the representation of reality is not an objective, cut-and-dried affair. Although there may be only one historical world, and even if certain facts about it can be agreed upon as objectively true, the ways of seeing and representing that world, like the ways of interpreting it, vary considerably."
Based on this statement, blog about what exactly you think this means and how the 6 modes of documentary film factor into this idea.
I think Nichols statement is very true. I think he is saying that even though different historic event may be agreed on by all, that that does not mean that everyone has the same opinion of that event. A example of this would be The way the German people viewed Adolf Hitler during World War 2. The German people loved Hitler, and the most of the rest of the world wanted him dead. Now the world knows exactly what Hitler did and the Germans try to hide that part of History. But At one point we didn't like him and they did, yet both sides knew what was happening.
I think the six modes factor into this because of what certain modes represent. Expository, Observational, and Participatory are the main modes that factor this. The reason being is because these all have to do with showing something, whether it be an interview or watching a riot go on, that can be agreed on about what is happening but still have two different opinions of what is going on. I also think they affect this idea, because of how documentary film is portrayed differently by each. In poetic film is portrayed in more of an avant-garde feel. In participatory film is showed as first had accounts by common people and is portrayed in a first hand unedited look.
Nichols writes, "The fact that there is more than one mode of documentary film strongly suggests the the representation of reality is not an objective, cut-and-dried affair. Although there may be only one historical world, and even if certain facts about it can be agreed upon as objectively true, the ways of seeing and representing that world, like the ways of interpreting it, vary considerably."
Based on this statement, blog about what exactly you think this means and how the 6 modes of documentary film factor into this idea.
I think Nichols statement is very true. I think he is saying that even though different historic event may be agreed on by all, that that does not mean that everyone has the same opinion of that event. A example of this would be The way the German people viewed Adolf Hitler during World War 2. The German people loved Hitler, and the most of the rest of the world wanted him dead. Now the world knows exactly what Hitler did and the Germans try to hide that part of History. But At one point we didn't like him and they did, yet both sides knew what was happening.
I think the six modes factor into this because of what certain modes represent. Expository, Observational, and Participatory are the main modes that factor this. The reason being is because these all have to do with showing something, whether it be an interview or watching a riot go on, that can be agreed on about what is happening but still have two different opinions of what is going on. I also think they affect this idea, because of how documentary film is portrayed differently by each. In poetic film is portrayed in more of an avant-garde feel. In participatory film is showed as first had accounts by common people and is portrayed in a first hand unedited look.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Blog Entry #2
Question #1.)
In our book, Nichols writes, "An attentive viewer must also be familiar with the repertoire of choices a director faces to recognize her decisions as choices rather than as simply the product of the camera's mechanical ability to record images." What do you think Nichols is trying to say in this statement? What are your thoughts?
Answer:
I think Nichols is saying that viewers, whom generally have no idea of the amount of work or different techniques a director can use, need to realize that how a movie is edited is how it was meant to be, and not just the product of a low budget. This could be the case as in films such as Napoleon Dynamite or Juno. Both of these films generally are thought to be poorly filmed and edited. But did viewers ever take the time to think that maybe they where meant to be filmed and edited in such a way, to give the film a more real life feeling to the viewer. This gives a director the ability to make the viewer believe something even before the movie has finished. Such as the case with the hero and villain of a movie. I think its really interesting but at the same time crazy how just the quality of a movie or the angle and lighting of a shot can influence the viewers view of the movie. The reason I find this so interesting, is because as a viewer of different movies, I take these things for granted. I generally don't sit down to watch a movie and break down each shot into why they took those shots that particular way. I also don't pay attention to how that influences me. I watched more of the movie Rubber and think that is what the guy at the beginning of the movie is getting at. He keeps naming of things and states why are these done this way? For no particular reason. I know that there is a reason, but i believe he is trying to point out that this is what viewers tend to subconsciously do when watching a movie. They sit and watch a movie and might think to themselves, why is it sunny at one moment or something else, and we just sit and accept that there is no reason for it, even when there is an underlying message.
In our book, Nichols writes, "An attentive viewer must also be familiar with the repertoire of choices a director faces to recognize her decisions as choices rather than as simply the product of the camera's mechanical ability to record images." What do you think Nichols is trying to say in this statement? What are your thoughts?
Answer:
I think Nichols is saying that viewers, whom generally have no idea of the amount of work or different techniques a director can use, need to realize that how a movie is edited is how it was meant to be, and not just the product of a low budget. This could be the case as in films such as Napoleon Dynamite or Juno. Both of these films generally are thought to be poorly filmed and edited. But did viewers ever take the time to think that maybe they where meant to be filmed and edited in such a way, to give the film a more real life feeling to the viewer. This gives a director the ability to make the viewer believe something even before the movie has finished. Such as the case with the hero and villain of a movie. I think its really interesting but at the same time crazy how just the quality of a movie or the angle and lighting of a shot can influence the viewers view of the movie. The reason I find this so interesting, is because as a viewer of different movies, I take these things for granted. I generally don't sit down to watch a movie and break down each shot into why they took those shots that particular way. I also don't pay attention to how that influences me. I watched more of the movie Rubber and think that is what the guy at the beginning of the movie is getting at. He keeps naming of things and states why are these done this way? For no particular reason. I know that there is a reason, but i believe he is trying to point out that this is what viewers tend to subconsciously do when watching a movie. They sit and watch a movie and might think to themselves, why is it sunny at one moment or something else, and we just sit and accept that there is no reason for it, even when there is an underlying message.
Monday, January 27, 2014
History Through Film: Blog #2
1.) After reading the introduction chapter to Engaging Cinema, what are your initial thoughts as to studying the subject of film?
I am excited to study film, even more so after reading the first chapter of Engaging Cinema. It showed me that there are different ways to look at film. It showed me how film can be anything from a silent film of a person walking down the street to a full length film that was made completely by computers such as Toy Story. I also never took into consideration how film affects its viewers, whether for good or bad. When I sit and watch the movie I do not realize how said film is affecting me. But, there are different cases of which people do get influenced so much by characters in big films that they may attempt to reenact those situations.
2.) Are movies a social danger of social benefit?
I think they are a bit of both. As I stated above, there are different cases in which people may reenact different situations in movies, that are not good. But at the same time movies such as Monuments Men, is teaching people of a real historic event that happened that many had no idea occurred. Overall I would say that they are a benefit, just for the soul reason of what the viewrs can obtain and learn from film.
I am excited to study film, even more so after reading the first chapter of Engaging Cinema. It showed me that there are different ways to look at film. It showed me how film can be anything from a silent film of a person walking down the street to a full length film that was made completely by computers such as Toy Story. I also never took into consideration how film affects its viewers, whether for good or bad. When I sit and watch the movie I do not realize how said film is affecting me. But, there are different cases of which people do get influenced so much by characters in big films that they may attempt to reenact those situations.
2.) Are movies a social danger of social benefit?
I think they are a bit of both. As I stated above, there are different cases in which people may reenact different situations in movies, that are not good. But at the same time movies such as Monuments Men, is teaching people of a real historic event that happened that many had no idea occurred. Overall I would say that they are a benefit, just for the soul reason of what the viewrs can obtain and learn from film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)