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

veronika week 9

Submitted by wbryer on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 5:58pm. VIS70 -- Taught by Wolfgang Hastert
for some reason, i can never add on the existing post. but here is my response, i hope this is ok. This reading was interesting in the way that it makes some elements of editing ok in certain aspects. For example, in section when we were discussing zoom, I recall one group that got criticized for its use of zoom. After reading this, there was a section where zoom is said to “produce the effect of a progression from normal-lens to telephoto view” (256). I think that all in all, it really just depends on the context of a film to really know what works and what does not work in the piece as a whole. I also think that criticism in general is a personal opinion with no right or wrong answer. As long as the filmmaker can defend the filmic aspects of their piece, that that is what makes it a good or bad film. It also depends on how well the filmmaker’s meaning is portrayed without needing explanation for their choices. Later, the piece goes on to say that “movement created by montage…[is] detaching objects from their background [and] lends a feeling of corporality and depth to the image” (257). I feel that movement does not necessarily have to be a form of detachment. It could also possibly be a source of introduction depending on the montage. For example, by showing a new room through camera movement, that room is then introduced to the audience, rather than detached from the characters. The camera movement usually only portrays things as detached if there are no characters in them. For example, the opening shot of Rear Window portrays detachment because of the pan around the neighborhood without any real character development. I did find the part about movement and montage interesting though because it made me think of the Kuleshov effect and how audiences were impressed with acting, when in fact it was only the frames around the actor that made him seem like a good actor. This just goes to prove that there needs to be multiple shots, angles, and images because without them, there would be limited montage. I found the part about continuity interesting. Sometimes I watch movies or TV shows and I realize that there are moments that are non-continuous. Some filmmakers may not notice the smallest of details because they are so focused on the big picture, so hiring people to check continuity is a good idea. That way, the filmmakers can focus on the big important things without having to worry about possible distractions involving continuity. Even though films are visual, sound still plays an important role in the creation of the image. Back in the silent era, sound was not as important because filmmakers knew they could not have anymore than background music and made movies accordingly. Nowadays, sound plays an essential role in most movies. For example, what is a musical without singing, or a gangster movie without gunshots? Sound has become increasingly more important to filmmakers as people become more used to sound effects and new technologies surrounding sounds.
» login to post comments | previous forum topic | next forum topic

2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle

Submitted by annechan on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 8:49pm.
I found “Reflexivity and the Specifically Cinema” quite similar to the previous reading of Roger Crittenden’s “The Language of Editing.” Both authors’ writings, in the examination of specific cinematic or editing strategies near sounding formulaic and serve almost as catalogues of filmic elements. Since Godard’s work such as in “2 Ou 3 Choses Que Je Sais D'elle ” is the destruction of denotation, it is somewhat paradoxical to lay it all out. Reflexivity is described as in “the universe within a photograph, flatness within depth and depth within flatness,” a postmodernist abstraction central in cinematic realism. Godard recontructs cinematic conventions through utilizing those same strategies in creating the flatness, narrative holes, discontinuity in both sound and sight. “Each of the filmic tracks: image, dialogue, noise, music, writing goes in a different direction.” Godard’s multiplicity of strategies creates seeming chaos and an ultra-textualizing to filmic form. The article notes that “we see ourselves as spectators(not auditors) viewing(not hearing) motion pictures(not sounds).” One can even refer to the article’s usage of “we SEE ourselves as…” and my use of “overlook.” Audiences may tend to overlook the power of sound in film but this is found in general the English language, not just in “the language we use to speak of cinema.” The article heralds Godard as the Picasso of cinema while the majority of audiences may not appreciate or understand Godard’s reflexive masterpieces. If conventional cinema is the cop directing traffic, Godard is the vehicle vandal.
» login to post comments

There are many things to

Submitted by hbeckett on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 8:00pm.
There are many things to think about when making a film. Most filmmakers stick to the basic functions of sound, music, color and movement when making a piece. Godard is one filmmaker who deviates from the standard use of these important elements of film. In his films, Godard flattens the image by doing a few different things. First of all, he uses two-dimensional objects, such as photographs and paintings to create a flat field. Godard eliminates all vanishing points, foreground and background to create the illusion of flatness. It is noticeable in his film “Two or Three Things I Know about Her,” how he uses more boring, primary colors and sets his characters up in scenes that are not visually distracting to the viewer. Movement is another important element in film, and can be created by many different things. The movement in the scene, camera movement, optical movement and movement created in the editing room are all present in film. The minimization or exclusion of movement can also be effective when making a film. This is the approach that Godard takes, minimizing movement in his film to create realistic images. The depth and reality of a scene can be maximized when the impression of real movement is created. Film is discontinuous because it is made up of many individual shots which are filmed at different times and pieced together at the end. However, montage can create a much more continuous feel, as can the use of sound. Godard uses sound to complete the images in his films, using the continuous flow of sound to cover the initial discontinuity of the original film. Godard also uses sound to confuse the viewer, placing loud scenes before and after silent or very quiet scenes and using noises that do not go with the image being shown. Filmmakers have many choices when creating their films. Godard uses his own special techniques to create his successful masterpieces.
» login to post comments

Reflexivity

Submitted by Leahjw on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 7:35pm.
Reflexivity and the Specifically Cinematic examines how the reflexive style of filmmaking departs from “orthodox continuity” and calls attention to the media itself. It describes how using unconventional filmmaking techniques can have effects on the audience other than just allowing them to passively follow a traditional narrative sequence or, possibly prevent viewers from falling into complacency when watching a film. Many of the reflexive techniques described in the essay, such as “exploit[ing] all kinds of film movement,” highlighting the artificial nature of film aspects such as color, and mismatching audio/visual elements of the film cause the viewer to become more engaged, to be more aware of the making of the film and to contemplate on why the filmmaker used particular techniques. The article highlights Goddard films, and after watching “Two or Three Things I Know About Her” last week, I can definitely see his use of many of the strategies discussed in the article. The article discussed using color to flatten images, which Goddard did throughout the film, especially with costumes. One scene I recall placed two solid, primary colored skirts (of the same basic pattern) next to each other – to me the effect was both to flatten the image, as well as to highlight the unnatural, or contrived character of film. The essay also says that “orthodox” methods of filmmaking only employ repetition to emphasize a particular point. Goddard uses repetition of words or visual images, but not necessarily for emphasis in such a simplistic fashion. He also demonstrates the juxtaposition of loud and soft sounds (construction noises, whispering) which calls attention specifically to the sound in the film, instead of allowing the viewer to think of the sounds as merely an ambient element of the story line. A lot of the elements discussed in the essay also made me think of “Reassemblage.” By putting sounds with images that we wouldn’t normally expect to experience together, we are forced to acknowledge and even question what and why we expect to see/hear. When Minh-ha used the repetitive shots of women’s bare breasts, we are encouraged to think about how images of women’s breasts are usually seen and how we think about those images. Putting clips in a sequence other than a chronological order also forces the audience to look at and analyze other elements of the film besides just the story line or plot. One thing I didn’t really agree with in the essay was the statement that Goddard uses too many of these strategies at once: “A disorienting sensory overload gives us too much to assimilate, as if the only way to understand the film would be literally to let the senses go their separate ways…” While I have only seen one of his films, I don’t think that his use of “multiplicity of strategies” is necessarily too much. It does require close attention, and probably several viewings to fully absorb each component of the film, the multiplicity is what made the film what it was. I did think there was a lot to digest in it, between the variety of conflicts being addressed, the various use of sounds and silence, colors, narrative and “documentary,” but I think taking any of one of those elements out would have greatly taken away from the experience of the film.
» login to post comments

Reflexivity and the Specifically Cinematic

Submitted by plyle on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 9:17pm.
In Reflexivity and the Specifically Cinematic the author explores how reflexive cinema differs from "traditional" cinema in it's approach to many aspects of the cinematic medium. The author covers movement, color, noise, and music in his analysis, in each case presenting examples of traditional uses, and then presenting examples of reflexive uses that subvert the traditional in each case. The author seems to want to convince the reader that traditional cinema is bland and uninspired, while subversive film practices are fresh and interesting. While the author attempts to cover this bias by, at several points, excusing their critical analysis of what they refer to as traditional cinema, the intentions of the article are very obvious. Traditional cinema is usually considered a form that presents a story or situation, complete with characters and conflict, and then takes the audience through the plot of the film until it reaches some sort of resolution. Cinematic practices that have arisen around this form of film serve to drive the story and characters forward, eliciting an emotional response from the audience, or petitioning for their interest and investment in the film. Because the average audience merely wants to be entertained, rather than challenged or presented with something for critical analysis, film studios have found it excusable to create formulaic, uninspired works that simply bring in money. However, there are filmmakers who still try to challenge their audience, and present original, fresh works for audience's consumption. This article seems to believe that any form of cinema besides reflexive cinema is uninspired and not worth taking into consideration as a serious piece of work. Rather, the author praises the practice of bombarding the audience with discontinuity, disjunctive sound, impossibly complex emotional triggers, and other "reflexive" practices. While I am all for creativity and originality, at some point I think a line needs to be drawn. When the audience is forced to watch a film multiple times and spend an excess of time deconstructing every tiny aspect of the film in order to get a sense of it, I think the intention of the work is lost. I'm not against using every aspect of film to in a sense "encode" meaning, but I feel that if a general audience is frustrated and confused by a film, the filmmaker has failed on some level. I see cinema as a form of storytelling and communication, and if all a filmmaker is doing is spewing pointed gibberish, I don't want to listen.
» login to post comments