Home » forums » Undergraduate courses discussion » VIS70 -- Taught by Wolfgang Hastert

Veronika's Section Week 8 readings...>_>

Submitted by DRaGZ141 on Sun, 11/19/2006 - 7:32pm. VIS70 -- Taught by Wolfgang Hastert
What the hell. I'm not even sure if anyone is reading this anymore, but...just in case: This one is on "Kidman, Cruise, and Kubrick" The need for more “realistic” acting in modern films isn’t necessarily a product of changing acting mentality, rather it’s a byproduct of the evolution of filming technology (this may be an obvious point but let me just reiterate that it’s a more important and influencing point than actor’s preference). In the old days of filming, especially when there was no sound, actors had to act flamboyantly as still on stage. This was due to two main reasons: 1. there was (obviously) no sound, so the actors had to compensate through actions, and 2. the actors at this point had directly transitioned from the stage to the camera, thus the framing and performance of the actors were both still dependent on the old standards of stagecraft, which by extrapolation used flamboyant movements and gestures to get their points across. Even once sound was integrated, this idea would carry on, simply because it was the standard as done before. At the same time, however, people were discovering they could directly manipulate the frame, thus manipulating exactly was being shown in the shot. A good example of this is Hitchcock’s “Rear Window”. While he uses a lot of the same conventions such as flamboyantly laid out conversations and long periods of silence, emulating the style of silent movies, he experimented greatly with using many different kinds of shots. He continues this in “North by Northwest”: lots of conversationally heavy scenes and long periods of silence compounded with masterful framing of every shot, utilizing elements from both worlds. As time went on and on, mainstream film no longer was about artistic representation but rather started leaning towards realistic presentations of entertainment, which was reasonable because a lot of the film technology being developed at the time was made for the purposes of being more realistic looking. As such, the norm is now to make the performance as true to life as possible and the flamboyant style of acting remains mostly isolated on the stage. The use of flamboyant acting on camera, now, looks strange and artificial, especially for a generation that grew up on film that was designed to be portrayed with as realistic portrayals as possible. However, the use of this older style of acting can still be used well, and for good experimental effect. For example, the movie “Clue” purposefully upped the flamboyancy in their acting to the point of comedic ridiculousness (this was the first example of a movie I saw where flamboyant acting actually fit very well into the style and aesthetics of the movie). On the other hand, this type of over-the-top kind of acting has worked very well for dramatic acting as well. “Eyes Wide Shut” is an obvious example. Darren Aronofsky’s first two films, “” and “Requiem for a Dream”, has sequences where melodramatic acting worked very well. Although it wasn’t intentional, “The Matrix” made use of flamboyant acting to take the aesthetic to a different level to relate with the audience. It isn’t so much that flamboyant acting has been phased out of the mainstream, rather that “realistic” acting is being used because it more easily fits into the modern context of film. - Marvin Choi
» login to post comments | previous forum topic | next forum topic

In Stanley Kubrick’s

Submitted by pzhang on Sun, 11/19/2006 - 10:17pm.
In Stanley Kubrick’s “Eyes Wide Shut”, tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman both acted in a way we are unfamiliar with in contemporary cinema. Their overacting was not only intentional but also delivers a message to us., The film is dark and explores the deepest problems and psyche of couples, if the actors did not over act, but merely acted as if they were real events, I would imagine he film to be much more ineffective. The tone of the film would be completely different, and the mood would be much lighter. The audiences will probably feel as if they are just watching another soap opera. By slowing down sequences, it allows audiences to think about what they are watching and why these events are happening, maybe even reflect on their own marriage, their own relationship. We should keep in mind that there are different productions coming out of Hollywood and everywhere else in the world. There are productions that are not only entertainment but also exploration and experimental films, while others serve as one or the other. Films like “Borat” that was just released is entertainment, as well as an experimental film in my opinion, it’s bringing the reality with unrealistic personas together. The acting in “Borat” mixes both realistic, and over acting. Realistic mainly from everyone else other than Cohen and his partner, while Cohen over acts his character 100x. This interesting contrast results in humor and the faces people carry. They can argue that no one wanted to make such anti-semantic comments, but they can not deny that it was them who said and acted the way they did. They are either fabricating a side of them with Borat to please him, or they were just fabricating a face for the public. As we mentioned in class, performance is an important part of cinema, and we should never overlook it, a good film, a good idea can be ruined with bad acting, while good actors cannot turn a bad script and bad direction into a good production. The reason I think cinema is so great now is because it incorporates so many disciplines of art, from photography, cinematography, music, theater, script writing, language, to direction and everything in between, not only that, we have to put them together in a form that conveys our idea, and put them together in harmony. Finally, I just want to comment on how culture and language is part of cinema and play a big part, some film that works in one language may not work in a different language, or may completely sends a different message and have a different vibe. \-p
» login to post comments

Stanley Kubrick

Submitted by sandrapark83 on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 1:53pm.
Stanley Kubrick’s “Eyes Wide Shut” played by Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman both are well known contemporary actors. The article claims that Kubrick’s films often times use cause-and-effect, “logic is turned on its head: we see the effect, but the cause is buried and unclear.” In Kubrick’s film, acting consists of surfaces, not depths, making them appear superficial and obvious at first viewing, but mysterious and even unlimited on further reflection. And in the film, “Eyes Wide Shut” the tone of the film would be different, while the mood would be much lighter. It gives the audience of the feel of watching an intense drama. The way the film is presented in a way to inform us of what to expect in the next scene but as you get deeper into the movie it leaves us with a suspicious of what to expect from these two characters. Nicole Kidman plays a role of a female who is driven by fantasy, dreams, self-knowledge, and an attenuated flirtation. In one of the scene she was at a party that she totally savors but makes sure that it stops well short of infidelity. While her husband, Tom Cruise, lacks full understanding of the couple’s sexual dynamics, of his wife’s simultaneous indulgence in sexual fantasy and in monogamy, and indeed of female desire. When there is slowing down in certain sequences, it allows the audience to think about what they are watching and why these events are happening, as well as giving them a time to reflect on each scene while relating to their own lives. Performance is an important part of cinema, a good film; a good idea can be ruined with bad acting. In another scene, Tom Cruise’s impotence and final lack of consciousness of what he has done or what has happened to him are proved by his inability to react in any way but to exchange one mask for one another. Just describing Cruise’s performance this way demonstrates that his acting is more complicated than it at first seems. Nicole Kidman announces her character through actions and reactions that, by means of slight exaggeration, appear as disconnected gests. Kidman suggests Alice’s inner life, though in a way that does not proceed from internal processes but is conveyed in surfaces. Cinema art is great in numerous ways because it allows us to incorporate so many disciplines of various art, from photography, cinematography, music, language, and many other forms of art. ----Sandra Park
» login to post comments

Dogma 95 and the "Vow of Chastity"

Submitted by 808dragon on Sun, 11/19/2006 - 8:27pm.
“It was supposed to be the rebirth of cinema.” This starting statement of “More Barnum than Dada?” Questioning the Intellectual Validity of Dogma 95 is referring to the movement of Dogma 95. This was a group of filmmakers that followed a strict code, “The vow of Chastity.” Now these restrictions that are contained in the Vow of Chastity is something that is both disturbing yet understandable to me. For the disturbing part, each of the clauses restricts the creativity and aesthetic part of filmmaking. Let’s go through the clauses to examine what disturbs me. The first clause says, “Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in” (2). This limits the director to shoot at a shot that contains props or none at all and then make it so if the director wanted to shoot at Vatican City; it would require him to actually go there. This would be highly difficult and would take more effort to do. The second says, “The sound must never be produced apart from the image, or visa versa.” The location’s sound is not always at optimum sound quality in that there is background music that is not part of what the filmmaker wants. This is something that voiceovers and sounds edited in help to take away. Therefore, when it is a necessity for the sound and shot to be filmed together it means that everything must be at perfect, ideal settings and environment, which is never the case; nothing is ever perfect. Just to name a few others, “optical work and filters are forbidden.”, “the film must not contain superficial action.”, “temporal and geographical alienation is forbidden.”, “the film must be in Academy 35mm.”, and “the director must not be credited.” All of these clauses I believe can be best summed by what is mentioned in the article: “Cheap.” All of these clauses are a cheap imitation of the experiences one would partake as a first time filmmaker. Perhaps it is an attempt to bring directors and filmmakers back to their roots; to bring about the renaissance of cinema and allow for these filmmakers and directors to hone in on their basic elements and redevelop the skills instead of relying on special effects and editing creating the film. On another note it would make the process of filmmaking more about the shot than the crew and the actual set up, making the process more efficient. In this aspect, Dogma 95 is understandable. Ultimately though I think that this Dogma 95 and its “Vow of Chastity” is flawed in the sense that it restricts the creativity and growth of film in that every film must be uniform in process; I think that the reason why this hasn’t kicked off like it was meant to was because it functions as an inhibitor to cinema, not renaissance. –Garrett Chow.
» login to post comments

uhm, the topics have become vague. But I enjoy them.

Submitted by AdamPeltier on Sun, 11/19/2006 - 7:46pm.
Kubrick’s direction of Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise does seem a little histrionic at first. But her choice of language makes it easy to follow and offers little difficulty in absorbing yourself in the plot. The slow building of tension when Kidman is revealing to Cruise that she’s been considering cheating in their fictional relationship was he over the top melodramatic monologue. When we watched bubble I assumed it was a metaphor describing the closed world they lived in. For some reason it became obvious that Martha did it even though in retrospect I could think of very little evidence to support my claim other than intuition. The buzz around me was something to the same effect. Having watched the interview with the lead character it became clear that it was a combination of documentary and fiction. The lead wasn’t performing any more than he would of on a normal day to day basis, other than a script dictating his behavior this time. The plot and story were fictitious. The scripted dialogue could’ve probably just been guidelines to direct the conversation, but giving them the domain to choose what they say, without having to remember a script verbatim, or cue cards that always seem to sound like ‘someone reading cue cards.’ It became quite apparent that they were just being themselves even if you hadn’t seen the previous interview. I’m not sure why Professor Hastert is so fond of Working class America or people hovering just above the poverty line, I’m sure there’s more out there that could convey the same point. A better sampling would be nice. To conclude with Dennis Bingham’s article, The lack of character depth is apparent in Kubrick’s film, we’re never really introduced to them traditionally, but instead you’re required to look around in the scenes for information in regards to the character. He doesn’t focus on any given objects, but the collection of similar objects is not unlike Hitchcock’s “Rear Window.” The characters are also much more secretive, they don’t share their inmost emotions with the audience, but instead we see them voyeuristically having an intimate discussion. The faces are seldom very expressive, but instead emotion is conveyed through words. Facial expressions are a hindrance to real emotion to Kubrick. --A. Peltier
» login to post comments