Because this film had a very limited amount of characters and settings, it was necessary that other elements helped to add appeal for the audience. Because in my commentary track the focus was on actual setting, I decided to apply my new critical eye to Gravity. The setting did vary partially, but as a whole it was based in outer space, go figure.. Instead, I noticed that in several scenes the camera work stood out to me in particular.
While I could only find trailer clips of the two scenes, they both have key elements in common. The first scene is called "Explorer's Been Hit", and it uses a long tracking shot to capture the action. This kind of shot uses a continuous shot from one camera, and the effect it creates is obviously one of continuity, but also one that adds a different perspective to the audience. The camera pans all around the action, allowing the viewers to see just how vast space was. You also are able to see everything happen in real time, making you feel like you're apart of the action, instead of just watching it happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQyKOAq-rA
I chose the next clip to parallel the first. The camera work in this scene is the exact opposite of the first clip- it does not focus on showing the scene as a whole, but focuses on Ryan. All we can hear is her heavy breathing and panicked signals, while the camera is focused on her face, even though she is flipping over during her free fall in space. It is not until the end of this scene that you can see that she is, and it almost disorientates the viewers like the tracking shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFQN_iqPTjc
Because there was not much in the way of set changes or props, aside from outer space, Gravity relied on film making techniques to portray certain aspects of the film to the viewers. This was done partially through a variety of different camera uses, including one of my new favorites, the tracking shot.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Alien
A topic I've focused on for other blog posts has been the comparisons of different androids in other films, like the Replicants in Blade Runner, actual robots in Wall-E, and alien races in Star Trek. The presence of non-human life forces in science fiction films is crucial, because it is hard to imagine a future that isn't primarily influenced by technology. There were two foreign beings in Alien, obviously the Alien and then Ash, the supposed human and then android. I guess because this is another Ridley Scott movie, he technically qualifies as a Replicant, but I digress. I think it was interesting that these two were included in the same film, because the reactions to them are quite different.
As we have seen before, humans do not react well to actual aliens. When represented in scifi films, aliens are not human like at all, and most often have far superior physical abilities. The alien in Alien was referred to as the "perfect organism", and it was treated as a huge threat by the crew, rightly so. It systematically hunted the crew in a very successful manner, and although Ripley seemed to dispose of it, the fact that there are sequels proves it wrong.
Ash is first introduced as a human, albeit an odd one. It is in his lack of reaction to the alien onboard that Ripley realizes something is wrong, and his attempts to murder her prove that he is not in fact human. While I don't really understand the whole rolled up newspaper attack, he clearly had no respect for human life and was far stronger than the crew members that came to her aid. Ash as a replicant did not outwardly harm the crew, but it was clear that he would if deemed necessary.
While Star Trek also introduced both aliens and androids side by side, it was to a very different effect than Alien. Neither the alien or Ash in Alien were peaceful, and therefore their roles in the film were very distinct. I believe the reason Alien was so successful in establishing itself as one of the corner stones of the science fiction genre is because it introduced both alien life force and mechanical humanity as equal threats. Both of these ideas seem to be equally terrifying to humanity: the idea that something we create in our likeness will somehow become more advanced than ourselves, and the idea that other beings exist than are inherently superior to humans.
As we have seen before, humans do not react well to actual aliens. When represented in scifi films, aliens are not human like at all, and most often have far superior physical abilities. The alien in Alien was referred to as the "perfect organism", and it was treated as a huge threat by the crew, rightly so. It systematically hunted the crew in a very successful manner, and although Ripley seemed to dispose of it, the fact that there are sequels proves it wrong.
Ash is first introduced as a human, albeit an odd one. It is in his lack of reaction to the alien onboard that Ripley realizes something is wrong, and his attempts to murder her prove that he is not in fact human. While I don't really understand the whole rolled up newspaper attack, he clearly had no respect for human life and was far stronger than the crew members that came to her aid. Ash as a replicant did not outwardly harm the crew, but it was clear that he would if deemed necessary.
While Star Trek also introduced both aliens and androids side by side, it was to a very different effect than Alien. Neither the alien or Ash in Alien were peaceful, and therefore their roles in the film were very distinct. I believe the reason Alien was so successful in establishing itself as one of the corner stones of the science fiction genre is because it introduced both alien life force and mechanical humanity as equal threats. Both of these ideas seem to be equally terrifying to humanity: the idea that something we create in our likeness will somehow become more advanced than ourselves, and the idea that other beings exist than are inherently superior to humans.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Sunshine
In a film called Sunshine, it's pretty obvious that the focal point is going to revolve around the Sun in some type of way. Sunshine focuses on a crew's mission to reboot the Sun, in order to sustain life on Earth. This represents a common fear of humans I believe; that such a small variable- a star lightyears away, is absolutely neccessary for life on Earth. This film defintely plays on this universal fear of the Sun failing Earth, but it also turns the introspect inwards on humanity, which in my opinion is a major trope of the sci-fi genre.
The sun itself can almost be considered as a character in Sunshine. It appears in many scenes as the focal point of the shot; it is looming and impressive over the ship, or through the viewing screen. It dominants every scene it's pictured in, especially with the help of the vibrant orange color and the fact that you can see its burning surface. Everything else is shot with a much darker color scheme, mostly shades of black and blue. The ship itself is very shaded, with a sterile feeling to every aspect. Even the room filled with plants, the main source of oxygen, is dark compared to shots of the sun. This is also seen when artifical light is viewed- it is blueish and just seems cold compared to the vibrancy and warmth of the actual Sun.
While the sun is a literally a star, that's what it is in Sunshine in a non-literal sense. The characters all react to the sun in different ways, which is partially what brings me to my conclusion of the sun also representing humanity. Their lives all revolve around the sun, but not just in the sense that it is their mission and that they need the Sun to exist. I think that this film also makes the connection that the sun represents the purest form of humanity and morality. These characters will sacrifice anything to save it. The crew of Icharus II struggle to both save the sun and protect their ideals in the face of it, which brings us to an age old question of philosophy- which matters more, the means to the end, or just the end?
The sun itself can almost be considered as a character in Sunshine. It appears in many scenes as the focal point of the shot; it is looming and impressive over the ship, or through the viewing screen. It dominants every scene it's pictured in, especially with the help of the vibrant orange color and the fact that you can see its burning surface. Everything else is shot with a much darker color scheme, mostly shades of black and blue. The ship itself is very shaded, with a sterile feeling to every aspect. Even the room filled with plants, the main source of oxygen, is dark compared to shots of the sun. This is also seen when artifical light is viewed- it is blueish and just seems cold compared to the vibrancy and warmth of the actual Sun.
While the sun is a literally a star, that's what it is in Sunshine in a non-literal sense. The characters all react to the sun in different ways, which is partially what brings me to my conclusion of the sun also representing humanity. Their lives all revolve around the sun, but not just in the sense that it is their mission and that they need the Sun to exist. I think that this film also makes the connection that the sun represents the purest form of humanity and morality. These characters will sacrifice anything to save it. The crew of Icharus II struggle to both save the sun and protect their ideals in the face of it, which brings us to an age old question of philosophy- which matters more, the means to the end, or just the end?
Friday, October 25, 2013
Star Trek Insurrection
I hate to admit it, but I actually enjoyed watching this film much more than expected. While Star Trek was one of the more traditionally science fiction films we've watched (go figure), I actually think it focused more on humanity than other films. I've focused on the concept of humanity versus technology or artificial humanity for movies like Moon, Blade Runner, and AI, but I feel that Star Trek does a better job at bringing up this internal conflict without the use of robotics.
The first instance I noticed of this theme was during Picard's questioning into the workings of the Ba'ku people. I was immediately intrigued when the Ba'ku male leader discussed how while his people were very technologically advanced, they chose not to use it in their daily lives. This immediately set them aside from the rest of the Federation, because they actively made the choice that machines were a hindrance to humanity. However, it is ironic that these people renounce technology and still reap the benefits from being virtually immortal, but I digress.
This scenario is made even more interesting when the plot point was realized that the Son'a were originally apart of the Ba'ku people, but split because of their differing views on technology. The fact that the Son'as wanted to steal the planet essentially for the immortality it brings does slightly mar the discussion of the goods and evils of technology, but it also brings forth another question about humanity. Are humans defined by our limited lives, or does the true merits of humanity rely on how we act? This film offers three different answers to this question. First, there is one of the Son'as, whose mission is to take the planet because he wants eternal youth, but also uses technology in all aspects of his life. Then there is the Ba'ku woman, who rejects technology but is immortal. Then, there is Picard, who chooses to remain aged, and while he uses technology, he maintains his morals even in the face of the Federation.
While the answer to who's humanity is the more acceptable is very relative, I believe that Jean-Luc presents the most human character. He does not use technology as a crutch, but he also does not let it encompass or control his entire life. The overarching theme of Star Trek Insurrection does not focus on the absence vs too much technology, but rather the right balance and morals used behind it.
The first instance I noticed of this theme was during Picard's questioning into the workings of the Ba'ku people. I was immediately intrigued when the Ba'ku male leader discussed how while his people were very technologically advanced, they chose not to use it in their daily lives. This immediately set them aside from the rest of the Federation, because they actively made the choice that machines were a hindrance to humanity. However, it is ironic that these people renounce technology and still reap the benefits from being virtually immortal, but I digress.
This scenario is made even more interesting when the plot point was realized that the Son'a were originally apart of the Ba'ku people, but split because of their differing views on technology. The fact that the Son'as wanted to steal the planet essentially for the immortality it brings does slightly mar the discussion of the goods and evils of technology, but it also brings forth another question about humanity. Are humans defined by our limited lives, or does the true merits of humanity rely on how we act? This film offers three different answers to this question. First, there is one of the Son'as, whose mission is to take the planet because he wants eternal youth, but also uses technology in all aspects of his life. Then there is the Ba'ku woman, who rejects technology but is immortal. Then, there is Picard, who chooses to remain aged, and while he uses technology, he maintains his morals even in the face of the Federation.
While the answer to who's humanity is the more acceptable is very relative, I believe that Jean-Luc presents the most human character. He does not use technology as a crutch, but he also does not let it encompass or control his entire life. The overarching theme of Star Trek Insurrection does not focus on the absence vs too much technology, but rather the right balance and morals used behind it.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Brazil
I really enjoyed the film Brazil, and while it strayed from the humans vs technology centric past films we've watched, I really liked the satirical view of Brazil. I related this film very much to Children of Men, and both films seemed to have an underlying parallelism. Brazil's was of a much more pointed nature. Everything done in this movie had an underlining double meaning, and one scene in particular occurred in the first fifteen minutes.
This scene begins in a Ministry office, with a low-level worker "supervising" a machine working on identifying terrorists. While the mistake made during this scene would be the basis for this movie's entire plot, the dialogue that occurred before the fateful fly drop is what I want to focus on.
Like much of the dialogue in Brazil, the action is occurring while a voice-over discussing other events is playing. The worker is sitting at his desk, attempting to read the newspaper, at the same time a fly is buzzing around his office. While this is happening, a Minister is talking to a television anchor about the terrorist threat in the country. The minister is convincing the public that these terrorists are a minor threat, even calling their success "beginner's luck". All the while, this fly is flying around the room, escaping the worker's attempts to kill it. It's almost comical the links this worker goes through to kill the fly, risking breaking his neck by stacking a chair on a filing cabinet on his desk to finally kill said fly. It's ironic the way these two events are occurring at the same time; a seemingly harmless terrorist group is resisting the government at every turn, while a fly is avoiding a newspaper swat. One can almost relate the two groups together, especially since the fly's death caused such a disastrous end for Mr. Buttle, much like the terrorist organization caused the demise of Brazil's main character.
Although this scene is ultimately a very small one in Brazil, it still demonstrates a greater theme that is very interesting when explored throughout the entire film; noticing the double meaning and parallelism.
This scene begins in a Ministry office, with a low-level worker "supervising" a machine working on identifying terrorists. While the mistake made during this scene would be the basis for this movie's entire plot, the dialogue that occurred before the fateful fly drop is what I want to focus on.
Like much of the dialogue in Brazil, the action is occurring while a voice-over discussing other events is playing. The worker is sitting at his desk, attempting to read the newspaper, at the same time a fly is buzzing around his office. While this is happening, a Minister is talking to a television anchor about the terrorist threat in the country. The minister is convincing the public that these terrorists are a minor threat, even calling their success "beginner's luck". All the while, this fly is flying around the room, escaping the worker's attempts to kill it. It's almost comical the links this worker goes through to kill the fly, risking breaking his neck by stacking a chair on a filing cabinet on his desk to finally kill said fly. It's ironic the way these two events are occurring at the same time; a seemingly harmless terrorist group is resisting the government at every turn, while a fly is avoiding a newspaper swat. One can almost relate the two groups together, especially since the fly's death caused such a disastrous end for Mr. Buttle, much like the terrorist organization caused the demise of Brazil's main character.
Although this scene is ultimately a very small one in Brazil, it still demonstrates a greater theme that is very interesting when explored throughout the entire film; noticing the double meaning and parallelism.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Wall-E
I think the reason this blog post was so hard for me was finding a topic that really spoke to me. First off, I really don't like Wall-E. I appreciate it's animation and production, but I never really got all the hype over it. And yes, I am aware that this is an extremely unpopular opinion. It just seems that the overarching themes of post apocalyptic world and human's destruction of Earth were too in your face, and the humanizing aspects of Wall-E's personality and his relationship with EVE were too forced.
However, something that I did experience from watching this film again was the way it made me think about previous films we've covered, Blade Runner, Artificial Intelligence, and Moon specifically. These four films all deal with some kind of machines that live among humans, with varying degrees of humanity. I think a very important trope of these films was it made the audience look at themselves and how we viewed humanity. In Blade Runner, the non-human factor was the Replicants. They were physically human, but they were engineered to be better, stronger versions. The fact that they were almost grown and assembled took away from their humanity, along with their short life spans and lack of emotions. Artificial Intelligence showed their non-humans as very similar, except they were mechanical inside, instead of being biologically the same as real humans. Moon again varied from this theme slightly by having actual clones; human in all aspects except they are a copy of a "real" human. In Wall-E's case, the nonhuman factor is a robot that actually looks like a robot.
Regardless of what kinds of "robots" these four films portrayed, they all had differing degrees of humanity. I was not particularly attached to the Replicants or David, because I knew they were not actually humans, and because they were not capable of portraying emotions that I related to as "human". My opinion changed for Moon and Wall-E, and the lines between how to treat robots and humans began to blur. I genuinely felt bad for both of the Sam's, but it was not because of his personality, because I considered him almost-human, and definitely more human than Roy or David. In Wall-E's case, I did consider him more human, based solely on his personality and actions. Wall-E's love for Eve was genuine, and so was his general personality- my favorite moments of this film were the beginning forty minutes or so of just Wall-E palling around. I think that the character of Wall-E is the most human-like character, even though he is a robot. While I'm still not entirely sold on the idea that emotions and love can be the sole basis for humanity, I agree that his actions made him more human than the other three characters.
However, something that I did experience from watching this film again was the way it made me think about previous films we've covered, Blade Runner, Artificial Intelligence, and Moon specifically. These four films all deal with some kind of machines that live among humans, with varying degrees of humanity. I think a very important trope of these films was it made the audience look at themselves and how we viewed humanity. In Blade Runner, the non-human factor was the Replicants. They were physically human, but they were engineered to be better, stronger versions. The fact that they were almost grown and assembled took away from their humanity, along with their short life spans and lack of emotions. Artificial Intelligence showed their non-humans as very similar, except they were mechanical inside, instead of being biologically the same as real humans. Moon again varied from this theme slightly by having actual clones; human in all aspects except they are a copy of a "real" human. In Wall-E's case, the nonhuman factor is a robot that actually looks like a robot.
Regardless of what kinds of "robots" these four films portrayed, they all had differing degrees of humanity. I was not particularly attached to the Replicants or David, because I knew they were not actually humans, and because they were not capable of portraying emotions that I related to as "human". My opinion changed for Moon and Wall-E, and the lines between how to treat robots and humans began to blur. I genuinely felt bad for both of the Sam's, but it was not because of his personality, because I considered him almost-human, and definitely more human than Roy or David. In Wall-E's case, I did consider him more human, based solely on his personality and actions. Wall-E's love for Eve was genuine, and so was his general personality- my favorite moments of this film were the beginning forty minutes or so of just Wall-E palling around. I think that the character of Wall-E is the most human-like character, even though he is a robot. While I'm still not entirely sold on the idea that emotions and love can be the sole basis for humanity, I agree that his actions made him more human than the other three characters.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Metropolis
Since the version of Metropolis we watched was the original, "lost" film that adds at least an hour, I figured I would pay homage to the characters the restored scenes added to. Originally, characters like the scientist Rotwang and the Thin Man had little screen time or background information, leaving their roles in the film very unclear. While the found footage does not exactly go in depth to the Thin Man's character, he definitely made an impact on my viewing of Metropolis.
The Thin Man was a traditional evil henchman character, but the fact that this film was both black and white and a silent film definitely impacted how the actor's presented themselves. Gone is the typical villain banter that is now expected from these almost filler characters. The actor has to rely on his movements specifically, and while they can be seen as over the top, they are the best way to relate his motives to the audience. He is tall and physically threatening, but it is apparent that he is not the typical strong yet dumb henchman. His actions in stalking the fake Freder show that he is also cunning, and I agree that the combination is refreshing.
Because the role of the henchman is not one that requires much screen time or back-story, the Thin Man was not a prominent character. However, like many other aspects of Metropolis, this character had a huge influence on modern day films. The character role of the henchman definitely did not originate in this film, but you can see it in a lot of more recent movies, with Charlie's Angels for an example. The character in this film is actually also called the Thin Man, and while his motives differ slightly form Metropolis' Thin Man, the influence is unmistakable.
Charlie's Angels Thin Man
Metropolis Thin Man
The makeup used on the original Thin Man also adds to his menacing attitude; his brows are darkened and lowered to appear more sinister, and his eyes have dark makeup to create shadows, allowing his eyes to pierce the audience. This was necessary for the cinematography of Metropolis, but you can also see this costume translate to the modern day Thin Man. Because Charlie's Angels Thin Man has the added benefit of talking, his makeup is not as dramatic. His appearance does change his eyebrows, lowering them and keeping them furrowed to keep his face threatening.
The character of the Thin Man in Metropolis is a very interesting one. His role is not particularly large, and he is constricted to conveying his scenes through purely his body movements and costume/makeup. However, his performance in doing so was very influential on even the "talkie" films of today's times, seen through Charlie's Angels.
The Thin Man was a traditional evil henchman character, but the fact that this film was both black and white and a silent film definitely impacted how the actor's presented themselves. Gone is the typical villain banter that is now expected from these almost filler characters. The actor has to rely on his movements specifically, and while they can be seen as over the top, they are the best way to relate his motives to the audience. He is tall and physically threatening, but it is apparent that he is not the typical strong yet dumb henchman. His actions in stalking the fake Freder show that he is also cunning, and I agree that the combination is refreshing.
Because the role of the henchman is not one that requires much screen time or back-story, the Thin Man was not a prominent character. However, like many other aspects of Metropolis, this character had a huge influence on modern day films. The character role of the henchman definitely did not originate in this film, but you can see it in a lot of more recent movies, with Charlie's Angels for an example. The character in this film is actually also called the Thin Man, and while his motives differ slightly form Metropolis' Thin Man, the influence is unmistakable.
Charlie's Angels Thin Man
Metropolis Thin Man
The makeup used on the original Thin Man also adds to his menacing attitude; his brows are darkened and lowered to appear more sinister, and his eyes have dark makeup to create shadows, allowing his eyes to pierce the audience. This was necessary for the cinematography of Metropolis, but you can also see this costume translate to the modern day Thin Man. Because Charlie's Angels Thin Man has the added benefit of talking, his makeup is not as dramatic. His appearance does change his eyebrows, lowering them and keeping them furrowed to keep his face threatening.
The character of the Thin Man in Metropolis is a very interesting one. His role is not particularly large, and he is constricted to conveying his scenes through purely his body movements and costume/makeup. However, his performance in doing so was very influential on even the "talkie" films of today's times, seen through Charlie's Angels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)