Bon Voyage!

Last week for class...

Arrived early for class with Bryan so we could make sure and catch Eric and get missing clips. Then I talked to Tommy for a while. Mariam was the only member of my group who was present and we did not talk about the movie. I checked with Donna to make sure I had completed all blog entries. Check.

Next week is the film festival. Should be interesting.

Love,
Jo Beth

This Is So Over

I just finished writing my film journal for our final project. It was basically a recap of this blog. How interesting? Last week in class we waited around for a while to have our captured film digitized-whatever that means. Now I'm just waiting for Austin to finish up on the editing so I can go to town with the sound. I'm really not sure what has to be done with sound. I know i'll have to take sound out of a few parts, but there's really only one or two sounds that need to be plugged in. Easy enough. I need to find those sounds, though. Boo. Not much else to share, really. I'm ready to have all of this done and over.

So, Next Week, Then?

Today marks the third week of attempted filming for group 5. Hooray? Let's take a walk down film making dilemma memory lane shall we?

1) Where's the camera?
2) Where's the camera?!
3) You have to be where on Monday? I have class then. How about yesterday at 2pm?...scheduling...
4) Charge that battery
5) Hmm. No tape? No Eric? No filming?
6) Let's schedule again

Aaand tomorrow marks day one of (successful?) filming. I think I've passed the point of frantic stress into the realm of apathetic filmmaking. I really don't care anymore. I don't feel like our setbacks have really been our fault. I blame it on poor syllabus scheduling, lack of respect from other teams, and poor communication from authority. This is really a terrible time for any of us to be running around town filming each other. I should be locked in a study room soaking up physics formulas.

Also, now that we're not having lecture anymore I'm wondering what the heck I'm supposed to be writing about. Our "film journals" are practically asking the same thing of us as these blogs. It's so redundant. I think I might just copy and paste from my blog.

I'm really looking forward to sitting in the Ethnography lab on the Monday and Tuesday of finals week. Can't wait! NOT.

Also, I've been promoted (thanks?) from sound techy to light operator and prop master.

And Then We Left...

Last week we signed a piece of paper that was posted on the door in order to account for our presence at the non-existant class. I signed. I was there. I'm not even sure if we're supposed to post for last week, so this oughtta be quick...

Group five gathered and got down to the nitty gritty with our filming junk. We were supposed to have gotten the camera that night, but AMAZINGLY we didn't get it until six days later. And it was without a tape. Which means... no filming until NEXT week. Two of the past three days I've had to reschedule because of the mix up. I'm so ready to not think about this dumb project anymore.

I wish we'd been able to start this project at the beginning of the semester rather than 5 weeks before it ends. I have finals to study for. I don't need to be creating sounds for something that has no effect on my future except for one A.

Don't Disect It

This year is wrapping up, friends. Class from here on out isn't really even class. It's let's-get-together-and-pretend-to-talk-about-our-film-while-we-really-stare-at-our-watches-until-it's-close-enough-to-time-that-we-can-sneak-out-without-being-wiley-college-kids. Three hours is waaaaaaaaaay to long to do anything, let alone talk about our movie we're eventually going to make. I guess if we were one of the first groups it would be beneficial. We would be able to use our class time and time already alotted to being together to start editing things. That'd be really nice. I'm dreading taking extra time out of my schedule, especially so close to finals, to make a silly movie.

We watched Adaptation this week. I'm completely undecided about it. At first, I thought,"Wow. This is pretty good. A close second to Singin' in the Rain." But, by the end of it I wasn't so sure. It was fairly entertaining at points. Others, I once again felt really uncomfortable and grossed out. Why, OH WHY, does there have to be nudity/raunchy sex/masturbation in everything we watch? It does nothing for the film. Blow Out, Adaptation, and The Player would have expressed the exact same thing had they not had any obscenity.

Nicholas Cage did a good job. An acting job nothing close to that in National Treasure, but certainly better than that awful skeleton motorcycle movie. EEW. What a terrible mistake that was, Nick. Meryl Streep was as good as ever. I bet she's honors material. She seems too smart for her britches. The toothless guy was pretty legit too, it seems like he always manages to make me laugh.

We always talk about the geniuses behind these movies that we watch. We talk about all of this deep stuff that the directors/screenwriters plan far in advance that have some deeper meaning. For example, this week Camille (not knocking you, Camille) suggested that Nicholas Cage's constant fantasizing/masturbating was as outward expression of not being able to fulfill anything inwardly. Sure, it makes sense. But what if he just did it because it's part of his daily routine? My point is, I don't think everything has some secret meaning. Sometimes it drives me absolutely nuts when we try to find a point or a reason or an explanation for everything. Can't we just relax, be brainless, and enjoy?

Looked at next Fall's honors junior seminar options....definitely NOT taking the film class that's being offered. I think I'll stick to organic things.

Sister of a Prodigy

Welllllllllllllllllll, I don't have a whole lot to tell that's new. This week was just another lecture class. A film/honors student came to class and showed us his film. He's been working on it for three semesters and finished two days ago. Maybe I'm just a rough and tough film critic, but I really wasn't very impressed. It was slow and so poorly lit that I couldn't tell what was going on. Maybe that was what he was going for? I admired the autobiographical efforts, but in my opinion....it just didn't quite cut it.

His results make me nervous... If he's been working on that for a year and a half, what the heck will I end up with after half of a semester? Call me a pessimist, but I think I'll just start hoping for a little better than the worst.

Last weekend I went home for the first time this semester. I talked with my brother, an elite member of Har-Ber High School's film program, about our projects. He started asking me all these questions about "plot point one" and character development and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. I just had to respond to him with a blank stare. He laughed condescendingly and proceeded to tell me how one of his films that he recently finished for the governor has been aired locally and entered in some sort of statewide competition. I can't lie, I'm impressed. Now if I could only get him to make my movie....

I also mentioned to him that my specific role was sound editing. At this, he turned up his nose and said, "Dang. That sucks. Sound is, no joke, the hardest part." My immediate response was, "Dang. That sucks. I shouldn't have been the nice guy and taken last pick." Oh, well.

We got in groups again and talked over our plans for our films. Here are my honest feelings in black and white about what we've got planned (sorry group, nothing against you). I don't like them. I think we've made everything much too complicated. I pictured a movie with very few cuts and very little sound-if any at all. I pictured a very dramatic, but boring movie with a bang at the end. I want simple, but powerful. That's not the way things are looking now. And it's killing me.

Conclusion: Movies are for watching, not making.

Entertain Me, Please

Last Thursday we watched The Player. It was... interesting. It's about a big wig in a movie production company, Griffin. He's potentially losing his job as the movie begins and we soon find out that he's being blackmailed by a rejected writer as well. There were a plethora of things that I found interesting and creative and well done in this movie, but overall I didn't care for it. And the redeeming qualities were:

1) The nine minute introductory scene- A long, sweeping scene without any cuts is one of the elements that I had entertained putting in the film that we are working on. It was enlightening to see a well made, and interesting example of such a thing. I loved the way the scene didn't focus on only a few characters. It showed so many different situations from so many different angles that I didn't even realize there had been no cuts. The overlapping sounds also affected my perception of this scene, which leads me to...

2) The director used some sort of new sound technology, an eight track something or other, that could lay sound on top of sound on top of sound. As a result, multiple lines of dialogue as well as sound effects could be distinguishably heard-with a little concentration-by the viewer. The sound made the movie realistic. I felt as if I were eavesdropping on people around me, all the while still emersed in the conversation at hand.

3) An affective use of symbolism- There are only three that I can think of off the top of my mind, but I kept seeing them over and over again throughout. The first was when our bad good guy drowned the writer in the puddle. Red neon light was cast onto the puddle from a sign above, making the situation a little creepier and more dramatically murderous. The second and third were the wardrobe choices for the man character and his love interest. As the movie progressed, the Griffin began wearing more and more black and taking less and less time to do his greasy, dissheveled hair. His lover, on the other hand, spent the entire film in all white and very little, if any, make-up. Griffin's wardrobe represented the progress of his "blackening heart" and her's represented natural purity.

4) Someone noted before the movie that there were very few big stars in this film. I'm not sure what the heck said person was talking about, because The Player seemed to be second to the Academy Awards as far as big star content was concerned. I saw Anjelica Huston, Burt Reynolds, John Cusack, Whoopi, Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Busey, CHER, Julia Roberts... and the list goes on. I've always loved movies that incorporate real life nouns, it makes things so much more interesting.

Things I didn't like? I didn't like the plot. I didn't like the raunchy sex scene. I didn't like not finding out who the blackmailer was. I didn't like that Griffin reproduced. I didn't like the pace of the movie. It was slow, and I was bored.

I'm ready to be entertained.

And the Award Goes To

Our script is written. Our actors are chosen. Our sets have been mapped out. I'm not sure I'm happy with our decisions. I'm a control freak. I've had a difficult time only playing the role of sound techy for this project. I have found it extremely frustrating to pour my ideas into our movie- ideas that I, naturally, think are totally brilliant and experimental and would BLOW the audience's mind- and then have them shot down by the "higher" powers. Or, even more frustrating, have them stolen straight from my brain and rearranged into terrible semblances of what they originally were. I really would kind of like to be able to sit back and let those in charge figure out what they want to do and then let me know so I can just do my job. Oh the life of a writer must be so sad and terrible. It's funny to look around and see the other muffled control freaks. I feel relieved that I'm not alone. Don't get me wrong, my group is great.

I learned that the only sound I record while we're filming is dialogue. This is cool and uncool. Cool because it means that I can do whatever the heck I want with sound. If I want no sound, I can do it. If I want an overload of sound, I can do that too. I'm still confused about what my exact role is, though. It seems that the editor kind of does the same sort of stuff. I'm not sure if my job comes before or after the editing. Or inbetween? I'm really banking on one of Eric's sessions to cover this.

Gosh. What else is there to tell? I don't want to give away any plot details, so there's nothing more to tell on the movie front. I'm not sure what movie we're watching this week. It has to be better than the last, though.... The Academy Awards are on. I'm loving them. Sometimes I feel disillusioned by movies. I love it when award season rolls around and recreates the magic. It's so refreshing.

The Art of Raunch

Can I appreciate the "genius" of Brian De Palma? Sure... I can definitely see how brilliant one must be to put elements together the way he did. Using Hitchcock's crazy camera skills, what seemed to be a general plot line from Blow Up, etc. and making it all work together to create one, fluid film is impressive. It reminded me of the way I was first enchanted by the way J.K. Rowling worked magic on Harry Potter or Ridley Pearson and Dave Barry created a background story for Peter Pan from thin air. Those stories are what made me have such an appetite for reading. The absolute brilliance behind the stories moved me. I wanted to find the brilliance within myself...

Did Brian De Palma's Blow Out move me? Heck no. I genuinely regretted being alive for all but one scene of the entire movie, and that was the three minute scene at the beginning where John Travolta is recording sounds on the bridge. The remaining hour and a half was near torture.

So, like I said-Techniques? Brilliant. Plot? Eh...There have been better, there have been worse. Acting? A little overacted at times, not terrible. So where exactly did this movie go wrong for me?.... I can't put my finger on it. I was really strongly against the vulgarity of the first three minutes of the film, the nudity, and the foul language. The rest of the movie could have been all hearts, stars, and rainbows....but that just ruined it for me. My mind registered "BOO!" and immediately turned off. I felt embarassed, uncomfortable, noxious, disgusted, and dirty. Donna said that De Palma would manipulate us. Those are all feelings that I don't think anyone should be made to feel. I think I feel a little betrayed by De Palma. How DARE he subject me to such crude material. UGH. So, there's strike one.

Strike two came around as soon as we met Sally. She was a weak, annoying, soggy piece of bread type of character. Plain. And. Simple.

Strike three? I was really annoyed by the fact that I didn't know what the heck was going on even after the credits rolled. I spent the entire duration of the movie in a state of bored confusion. I usually enjoy and consciously look for a good plot twist/unexplained detail. I really could have lived without finding out what exactly happened and who did what. The plot and it's inner workings were a bust, in my opinion.

Was it Brian De Palma's fault I didn't like his movie? Yes and No. He made directoral choices that I definitely didn't agree with, but the plot was a blow out.

Experimental experimental

So, for this class we have been divided up into six groups of four or five people. I was blessed with outstanding group members (Mariam, Austin, and Matt) who I am thoroughly excited about working with. Each group is responsible for producing a 5ish minute film for our final. As a group, we assigned individual roles. Mariam is director, Austin is editor, Matt is cameraman, and I am soundwoman. We are, essentially, our own film company. I wasn't aware until last night that there were more stipulations for our movies (i.e. genre, props, dialogue). Group five was assigned the genre of "experimental." We initially turned up our noses. What the heck does experimental mean? So... We wikipedia-ed the genre and learned that "experimental film is the range of filmmaking styles that are generally quite different from, and often opposed to, the practices of mainstream commercial and documentary filmmaking." Basically, these films try to do exactly what is not normal, like scenes out of focus or the lack of a soundtrack. They're supposed to connect the viewer more closely to the film. Two weeks ago I was all for this genre. I wanted to go crazy with the "rules" and throw all caution to the wind. But, now I'm scared. I think I'd rather sit comfortably within the highly expected cliches of a romance.

Before we ever were assigned the genre, we started brainstorming. It was obvious from the start that we were keen on a romantic, cutesy film. We had four main plot lines lined up:
1) Girl meets guy. They spend perfect, romantic day together. Girl finds out guy is gay.
2) Geeky girl meets guy. Guy not interested. Girl gets makeover. Guy wants her. Girl kills guy.
3) Girl always ends up going on dates with creepers. Finds prince charming at the end.
4) Girl and guy best friends. World is ending. They spend last day together. They die.

We figured we had all of our bases covered. We has romance/comedy covered (obviously). We had horror covered (with #2). We had sci-fi/action/drama covered (#4). And then Eric threw us a experimental curve ball... So, we thought we might just try to include EVERY genre in one movie and call it experimental. I had a feeling that wasn't exactly what Eric had in mind.

So, Austin blurted out that he really liked the creepy dater plot. I started thinking on this and came up with the idea that maybe this female character could date all of these "creepers" and never have a successful relationship. Upon examining herself, she realizes that all of these men weren't actually strange. There was in fact something wrong with her.... We haven't gotten much further than this. What I have in mind is a turn of events where we learn something about our lead female that makes her reevaluate who she really is.

Some things I want to include:

Garrett Wright
a montague of "creeper" dates
a 360 degree shot (That 70's Show)
lead only shot in POV/over the shoulder

It's a Wallgreen's kind of world

Singin' in the Rain.

I'm ashamed to say that I'd never seen the full movie until last night. At least I'd seen the infamous rain scene...

I enjoyed watching this movie better than watching Sunset Boulevard. This one was just so cheery and left me feeling so fluffy. I was reinergized enough to finish writing my sophomore lecture. As I made my way home, the outside (freezing) air even felt a little warmer. Sunset Boulevard left me feeling so dirty and tired and made me feel like I ought to keep looking over my shoulder into the shadows to make sure that Norma wasn't following me home.

While there are obvious reasons for the two films' opposing tones (song and dance vs. ominous mood music, technicolor vs. black and white, hopeful plot vs. hopeless plot) , I'm wondering... what were some of the hidden reasons?

I'll use our reading from this week as a jumping point. Let's talk about the set. In Sunset Boulevard, Norma's house was portrayed in one of two schemes. The first was very open and lifeless. Take, for instance, the images caught near her staircase. The viewer could see just how magnificently expensive the decor must have been but there was also an earie quietness to the whole scene. These scenes gave the effect of a lonely grandeur. On the complete other end of the spectrum was Norma's sitting room where she and Joe wrote her script. This set was so full of knick-knacks and photos and lounges and pillows and furniture that the scene was almost stifling. These scenes did a fantastic job of displaying how suffocating and overbearing Norma could be.

Now, let's move on to Singin' in the Rain. Most, if not all, of the sets were quite large in scale. They were neither vacant nor over-propped. There seemed to be a specific, tidy place for everything. I don't know why, but the Walgreens commercials where the world is a perfect place keeps reappearing in my mind. I'm thinking of the rain scene when Don's prancing down the street... the street is so clean! There's not stray trash, gum stuck to the ground, or stray cats. He lives in a Walgreens world. Apart from the acute conflict over producing a successful talkie, this movie's Hollywood world is flawless.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, well done you set and prop directors. You really highlighted a lot of underlying theme in these two movies. I'd like to give credit to these guys for evoking a noticeably different response to each movie.

I don't want to appear to have written this as if I thought of it all before typing. I truly have just come to the realizations. There's nothing like beginning with one intention and ending with a different one.

Hitchcock Loves Bikinis

Let's see. This week is the most psychotically stressful week in my college career. I can currently think of little else beside projectile motion, free falling objects, diabetes, how to explain marathon training in spanish, and how I'm going to surely fail life by Friday. The gears and turbines of my mind have iced over-thanks soggy, wintery weather-and I can't seem to find my de-icing fluid. All that to say, I'm hoping that a stream of consciousness approach will be the key to my success with this week's blog post.

What methods from the past few class periods do I believe I might be able to pull off in my short film? Well, I suppose that mostly depends on what we make our film about. A romantic film would certainly use different techniques than a slasher film. There are, of course, a few that I'm interested in doing, but am intimidated by.

#1 I really want to make a talking transition. I was so impressed by Orson Welles's Citizen Kane. The scene that ages Kane and his wife in what seemed like one swoop blew my mind. I'm especially impressed after experiencing firsthand just how crafty you have to be to create a legit, smooth, flawless transition. I'm not sure I was fully satisfied with any of my transitions in my boxed film project. They were either corny-like a powerpoint, or awful and obvious. I have an inkling of an idea how this could be achieved, but in reality I'm like a blind mouse in the dark. I don't know what the heck I'm doing.

#2 I'd also really like to have a few shots where the depth of field is HUGE. I love shots, like in Sunset Boulevard, where you can see foreground as well as background action. I'm imagining a sort of melodramatic situation where a character comes walking up from a long way away, all the while viewers being able to clearly distinguish who the character is....leading to a "Oh Barbara Bush's brassiere, HERE HE COMES!!!" gut wrenching reaction.

#3 Eric said that the rule of thirds and the 180 degree rule were just rules of thumb to keep images balanced and viewers clear as to what action is taking place. I really want to break these molds and deliberately NOT follow these rules. I'm not sure if I'd like the finished result, but I'd at least like to try it out. I think it would make for an interesting, iconic sort of film. Who doesn't want to stand out now and again?

I Prefer My Chimps Cremated

Well, oh boy. Where do I begin this week? Maybe with a strole down Sunset Boulevard. I genuinely enjoyed the film until about 45 minutes had passed. Then, I just wanted to throw rotten vegetables and "boos" at the screen. Not with the intention of suggesting that it was poorly made-it was quite the opposite, in fact. The overacting, dramatic lighting, and thrilling music just started to make my stomach turn. Or was that the Trix I packed for a snack? No, no... it was definitely Norma. I wish I were better with words so I could clearly depict just how awfully uncomfortable I felt. I wanted to scream and beg her to stop, or maybe just go on and kill herself. Although, if I wanted to be honest, I would have to say that all of this must mean that the movie, overacting, dramatic lighting, and thrilling music included, was successful. Ugh. Film. Why do I let you control my emotions?!

I found myself sympathizing with Betty. On my list of qualities the only thing I had written for her was "pure." So she wasn't necessarily "pure," what with her cheating on Arty and all, but her intentions and desires weren't as dark as other characters in my mind. I also found the non-Norma life much more realistic. I never quite figured out why Norma's world was more believeable. She reminded me of Cruella de Ville.

TV guide channel inspired an epiphany last night. Hollywood is an alternate reality.

Will Mop for Peter

Directing is cool. Acting is fun. Lighting is a bore. Sound is aaaaaaaaaaaaaaamazing. I kept hating myself while we watched the special on sound from Lord of the Rings. Why, oh WHY, was I not blessed with an innate love for film, and thus soundmaking? Instead, I'm going to manipulate joints and make people walk again. Arguably, I could change my life plan. It is, of course, never too late to find a new passion. I think I have quite a few character traits that would be beneficial in the world of soundmaking... I like to think I'm fairly creative, imaginative, a go-getter. But, on the other hand, I'm not sure I have the patience to do tedious work with things or co-workers. So, maybe sound's not for me. It was a nice dream while it lasted.

I found my gag reflex while we watched the Star Wars guys put their movie together. Watching them tear the movie apart and put it back together made me a nervous wreck. There are endless possibilities as to how that film, or any film for that matter, could be put together. I would drive myself crazy trying to figure out which version I liked best. I'm too much of a perfectionist. Needless to say, while I'm interested in the idea of editing 20 clips together to create a story, I'm definitely not excited. I think I'd rather watch Steven Spielberg do it.

I'm hoping to be discovered by Peter Jackson soon. I think I'll start sending him psycho fan mail, maybe show up at his "sound palace" once a week until he hires me. I'll mop his floors. Or brush his hair. I don't care. He seems like fun.

How Channing Tatum Affected Hollywood

I found myself wondering in the shower after class the other day: Is there anything in my life that I could compare to what people experienced decades ago when movies hit the big screen? I couldn't think of anything off the bat. The way I imagine it... people were blown away by this thing called movie. An image. Huge. On a white screen. It's a pretty monumental jump to go from something as small and simple as a zoetrope, or theater with live people, or real life, even, to a larger than life moving image on an otherwise inanimate, boring screen. This. Was. HUGE. What new invention have I seen come to fruition that rocked the world as widely as film? Ipods, perhaps, are the only widespread new entertainment technology that has happened in my memory. Although, Ipods are not to me what movies must have been to the public way back when. Is this because the progression from walkman to Ipod was the natural next step? I'm not sure.

Learning about the history of film in the sweetened, condensed way that we did last week made me realize just how little I know about so much. It was refreshing to be knocked down on my intellectual rear end and be humbled once again. I was fairly impressed at the rapid pace at which humans have been able to make progress in the filmmaking world. It seemed like such a short span of time for us to move from the primitive stop motion of George Melies's The Conjuror to Footlight Parade with wild, aquatic choreography by Busby Berkeley. I guess I always imagined progress in Hollywood as slow, though now I don't see why.

I was struck by what Donna said about how old film reels are pieces of history because people didn't understand that they were being recorded. I immediately felt sad that now and forever, humans won't be able to treat cameras that way again. We've been conditioned to either run to the camera in hopes of being caught and published or hide from it or pretend it's not there, leaving us looking like suspicious and awkward creepers.

At the same time that it makes me sad that film has had this affect on humans, I'm also so grateful that movies have been a part of my life. When I was seven, I wanted to have hair like Ariel... so I layed in the bathtub for hours swishing my hair from side to side. When I was thirteen, I watched Tom Cruise do daring and dangerous stunts in Mission Impossible... so I organized a cross neighborhood spy game. When I was sixteen, Channing Tatum lifted his dance partner above his head in Step Up... so I fainted, then immediately wanted to drop everything, find a chiseled hottie, and become a professional dancer. There's no doubt that film has influenced my life in a number of ways.

I think I'll enjoy this class.

Test Run

Test post