Cathy's sections - A05+A06- responses end of WEEK 2 - due SUN OCT8

Jennifer Ma----According to Stefan Sharff, the author of “The Art of Seeing, the Art of Looking”, ““cinema art transforms the photographic “mirror to reality” into a “cinema reality” by introducing rhythm and texture, so the whole modality becomes a world more dense and vibrant than the ordinary one around us” (67). And in his opinion, Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window in 1954 was the classic representative that can best fulfill to this idea. He points out that the Rear Window not only response to the Pythagorean principle of aesthetics, demonstrating harmony, completeness and consistency, but also overflows with authentic inventiveness and even avant-gardism, which in its subtle way extends the semantics of cinema” (67). The author explains that the main focal point of the Rear Window was “the notion of looking, observing and seeing across from the gazer, across from someone…” with the protagonist Jefferies being the observer looking across the courtyard into people’s apartments and having the us, the audience, looking through his eyes. He argues that it is about the perception of what the character can see though his visible window and not about him being a voyeur or a peeping tom. This film, Sharff points out, acts on two basic modes of the audience versus the screen and the world across looked through the eyes of the onlooker. Sharff explains that Hitchcock works with a hierarchical of forms such as looking across being a subliminal effect. Hitchcock’s style of having an onlooker viewing the world across from him is laid out like a silent film. And the film was very sophisticated and complex in images; in fact, it was entirely image- dependent, because almost 35 percent of the movie is without dialogue (67). Sharff also mentions that it was creative to use the windows as frames, which made the senses looked extraordinary and abstract. Hitchcock always uses the long and medium-long shot in Rear Window. In a later scene, when the protagonist uses a pair of binoculars and telephoto lens on his camera as to have a closer look at the people he watches, the shots became close-up and medium shots. This skillfully changes of shots and image sizes made the film moves along smoothly. The audience can fully understand the protagonist’s situation and put themselves in protagonist’s vision and thus feel the reality.

Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window is aesthetically and creatively entertaining. Hitchcock goes beyond cinematography and brings it to a completely different level that not even modern day directors can accomplish, which is why he is considered one of the most successful and ingenious directors to ever live. Hitchcock would use few words and most of his movie would have little dialogue; he would base most of his plot and story off imagery. 35 percent of Rear Window was silent. His work was not just considered entertaining or cinematic, but also visually artistic, a completely different genre. Although others may have other opinions towards movies and other cinematic features such as movie critics, they are actually unable and insufficient to judge his films or any other’s film because they do not have the proper expertise on the subject in visual arts. Alfred Hitchcock’s film Rear Window was so strategically done, that his movie was more than just the outer, simple “peeping tom”, but more so the interior of the actual “looking”, “observing”, and gazing across at someone else. The movie is about a man, L.B. Jefferies, who observes people across from his apartment through his window. The way Hitchcock goes about filming Rear Window is by taking the audience and putting their eyes in Jefferies eyes, only seeing what Jefferies can see. At a specific point, Hitchcock surprises the audience without them knowing, or even noticing by making the camera free from Jefferies view, the floating camera. This effect allows the audience to see what Jefferies is unable to see, such as a possible outcome of the film, usually insight on what is happening or going to happen in the film. There are two different basic modes that film operates on: the normal realistic film, or the world across viewed through the onlooker. Hitchcock uses these basic modes throughout the film and does it through hierarchical layers. He does something called the subliminal effect, which is subconsciously putting a message in the audience’s head without directly stating it. Hitchcock also uses framing as a layer in his films. He puts specific things in the frame that one may notice later during the movie. In Rear Window, the film starts out with a cat going up the stairs, and the camera follows. As the cat walks up the stairs, the frame follows it, but then drifts off focus from the cat until the cat is no longer in the frame. This effect makes it appear that the cat is pulling or dragging the camera with it. In this film, he also puts three steps in Jefferies apartment that one would usually never point out or even notice. In the end of the film, Jefferies is about to be attacked by the murderer, but before the murderer can reach Jefferies; there are 3 mysterious stairs that he has to conquer before he can kill Jefferies. Strangely while watching this movie, the audience already knows that there are three steps he must walk up, even though we would have never pointed them out unless they were worth any importance to the film. Hitchcock’s amazing cinematography in his films separates him from any other director. Only he could make sense or entertain people through a silent film.

Alfred Hitchcock creates an amazingly suspenseful film by using the placement and point of view of the camera. By choosing the view to be from the apartment’s rear window he is able to incorporate multiple stories into the movie giving incite into many different aspects of human life besides the essential plot. The camera literally looks into the other tenants’ windows, while it metaphorically looks into their souls. In this way Hitchcock uses the camera to show human nature through actions. Since the main character and the viewers of the film cannot hear the dialogue that is going on in the apartment across the courtyard, their only means of connecting to the lives of the other tenants is through the lens of a camera. In this manner the camera’s view becomes the basis of the whole film. The camera sees what Hitchcock wants it to see and that is what it would normally see when placed in an apartment window. However, using suspenseful panning, lighting, and zooming, Hitchcock is able to expertly create the feeling of suspense and suspicion throughout the whole movie. He turns a seemingly mundane camera view point and changes it into a view into human life.

Response to “The Art of Seeing, The Art of Looking” by Stefan Sharff Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window is a perfect example of mise-en-scene and how important the images that fill the frame are. According to Sharff, “35 percent of the movie is silent, without dialogue.” The silence of the film mirrors that of the protagonist played by James Stewart – the silent observer, a “Peeping Tom” who is looking into the various lives of the tenants who live behind him. Even the profession of the main character, L.B. Jefferies, is one associated with silence – photographer. Looking at a picture you essentially create your own ideas, conceptions and background story about it. Even though the protagonist is unable to work due to injuries (shown clearly through a bandaged leg), his photographic mind is still working, observing everything around him and making his own opinions about their actions – which leads him to ultimately believe one of them is a murderer. Also, when a film is silent, the audience – the fourth wall – is almost forced to pay closer attention. There are no clues in the dialogue, so the audience must make their opinions based entirely upon actions and music (or silence). Hitchcock, the master of framing a scene perfectly, creates little worlds inside larger ones through using the windows as frames. Every window in Jefferies view is it’s own stage, and he watches as their lives unfold. Through his framing, Alfred Hitchcock creates several different layers within the larger one of Rear Window. The first layer is the general world of the main character and the characters he observed. The next layer is the real world of L.B. Jefferies – with all the problems of his marriage, career, and life. Jefferies has another layer, in which he observes the lives of those who live across from him. And there are multiple layers in each and every character that Jefferies observes from his vantage point at the rear window. Hitchcock puts all these layers together to create the final effect, his film Rear Window. For example, in placing a musician in the apartment building, Hitchcock has just created a constant and reliable source of music – both diegetic and non-diegetic. The characters are hearing the music, but as the music becomes the theme of the film, the audience identifies with and recognizes the music at a subconscious level. In observing the characters only through their windows, Hitchcock has the choice to pick and choose the exact details of what he wants to reveal to the audience. The audience becomes so accustomed to having the musician in one space, the dancer in another, that when they finally emerge from their compartmental lives at the end of the film, it is an epiphone. It is like seeing a conservative coworker at a crazy party in Tijuana. They are the same person, but seeing them in the same space constantly creates a certain stigma that it is shocking to see the person in another light. Alfred Hitchcock, the master of using elements of film that the audience is unconsciously aware of (i.e. mise-en-scene, sound), creates a final film that is laid out perfectly and a masterpiece.

Although I've seen wonderful examples of both video and film, I’ve always had a lesser opinion of video. The scratchiness and fuzziness of video made me belittle the art and I didn’t understand it at all. The reading (Belton), along with the films, made me appreciate the artistic attributes of both and I realized what they have to offer with their unique characteristics. Learning about how each technology developed and about their histories was interesting, despite being lengthy and technical at times. I found the heritage of video especially interesting, and how it was born from telegraphic/phonographic roots. Although the quality of the images and sound on video compared with film is drastically low as the images are often fuzzy and unrealistic, it is that quality that, if used effectively can bring a work to a whole different level. Today's technology in comparison takes away a lot of the mechanics and perhaps some of the magic as well. Sharff's analysis of Hitchcock's "The Rear Window" illuminates various fine points of the film, such as camera placement and the direction of the action. One of the most interesting things about the film is that it’s seen from a "seer's" eyes. Undoubtedly, this places the viewer in the protagonist's shoes with which a special experience is felt. Moreover, it is the genius orchestration of the scenes that allow the viewer to be hooked. The fact that "windows" are used enables the voyeur effect to come into play which makes things interesting, despite the lack of much dialogue. This way, the viewers themselves can come to know the characters rather than hearing about who they are. The lack of dialogue is actually used in a positive way as it does draw the viewer’s attention to the visual aspect of the film, where most of the power of the film lies. -Priyanka Soni

In John Hanhardt’s “Connoisseur of Chaos,” Hanhardt explores the powerful effect that Robert Frank has had on independent cinema. Frank’s films delve into ideas of private and personal space and real and imagined worlds. In a fact, Frank uses his camera as a way to reflect his place in the world. As Hanhardt alludes to in the title “Connoisseur of Chaos,” Frank seems to infuse his work with an element of chaos and disorder. According to the author, “no secure relationship, exist between Frank and the world he records” (73). This idea was illustrated during the screening of Pull My Daisy as the movie tended more towards a sense of life’s random flow. There seems to be no aim, no meaning, only disjointed occurrence. The chaos of the film mirrors the turmoil of Frank’s characters as they travel through life. Being a key beat film, Pull My Daisy reflects the ideas underpinning the beat movement, a sense of anarchy, “a rebellious belief in language,” and “the restless spirit of the artist” (77). Frank’s film seem allow him to better understand the world around him but also himself. In the article “An American Inspector,” Deirdre Boyle interviews the documentary filmmaker Frederick Wiseman regarding his many years of documentary filmmaking. Referring to Wiseman as a “Lion of the American Documentary film,” Boyle looks at the way Wiseman sees his own films and explores the ways in which Wiseman makes films. Upon reading this interview, one comes to the realization that there is a hell of a lot that goes into making a movie. I found it really interesting when Boyle pries into the development of characters. Wiseman claims that truly knowing a character, for him, seems to be partially a function of the length of the movie. The longer the audience observes and sees a character, the more the audience seems to understand the character. However, the situational context in which the audience finds the characters can greatly affect the greater feeling of a character. A hospital where death, families, doctors, and nurses surround characters will translate into a greater knowledge of the characters. Having never taken a film class, I have been truly surprised by how important editing can be. According to Wiseman, editing is an “important part of the film’s rhythm” (81). In chapter 27 “Elements of the Documentary” from the book Directing the Documentary, Michael Rabiger attempts to break down the major elements that underlie documentaries. Rabiger begins by the different ways in which one could fill the picture. Beginning with action footage, Rabiger proceeds to outline people talking, re-enactments, library footage, graphics, and blank screens. After picture, the author addresses the different sounds one could use: voice-over, narration, synchronous sound, sound effects, music, and silence. By illustrating the basic ingredients of the documentary, Rabiger helps me to understand what tools I have at my disposal when it comes time to make my documentary. The following section on point of view is much more complex than just basic picture and sound. It involves the placement of perspective or ideas to give certain effects resulting in objectivity, reflexivity, and even subjectivity. The final section involves time, development, and structure, which in a nutshell refer to the different genres of documentary: the event-centered film, the process film, the journey film, the walled-city film, and the historical film. After reading this excerpt, I feel that I have gained a much deeper understanding of what a documentary truly is and some of the different techniques used to build a good documentary.

Reading John Belton’s article help me learn a lot of things. It helped me to better Professor Wolfgang’s lecture about distinguishing between the terms of “video” and “film”, and the characteristics of both. It talked about how the origins of both are very distinct and unique: while cinematography had its origins in photography, video had its origins in telegraph technologies One of the things I found most interesting about the article was learning about what the roots of certain words meant. However, the connection between the two lies in the sound technologies that both depend on. The history of how the video technology evolved, and how the term came to be what it is today through a series of a events such as war and news broadcasts. The discussion of television technology was very engaging, and enlightened me of even further discrepancies between it and the other groups. The taught me how video primarily reproduces and is very mechanical. A nice introduction to the history of both video and cinema, how both came to be, why each is what they are, and a nice explanation of appreciation of both forms. Meanwhile, despite the fact that I found Stefan Sharff’s piece a bit more confusing to read, at least at first, I thoroughly enjoyed his practical approach to introducing the reader to the tricks and tools used for cinema. Sharff was able to explain and expand upon the various cinematographic concepts used in Rear Window very well, such as what the audience is able to see and the characters are not, and what the characters are able to see, but what the audience is not. I was also able to understand what Professor Wolfgang said about silent films and the movie North by Northwest (which he showed in class) much better after reading Sharff’s piece, as well as the presentation of Rear View Mirror in class. I also laughed a bit when he talked about the binoculars, because that device has been used so many times within TV shows and movies, and it was fun to learn the ideas behind it (“An excuse for changes in image size” (5)), and how and why it is used: The director wanted many different stories and lifestyles presented to compare and contrast them with the life of the main characters, so he used the scene with the binoculars to do it. The usage of familiar images seems to be an important point that will become more apparent and easy to understand and catch as time goes on. The act of implying instead of outright stating through the use of cinema is also another concept that this article seems to focus on, and helpful in appreciating the usages of similar techniques. Overall, I enjoyed both pieces. They told of the ways the person or persons filming, recording, and editing all must find ways to engage the audience. When it all comes down to it, video and film shooting is a complex art that one must practice to understand and utilize.

I felt a strong connection with Robert Frank after reading John Hanhardt’s article. I like what he’s been doing with his art and work. I think he has some great ideas and approaches to life and film. He goes deep into what he does and I appreciate his integrity and conviction. He seems to follow his heart and intuition and as result create works of lasting value. His idea of blurring natural improvisation and scripted parts reflects the natural process if human interaction perhaps. The interview of Frederick Wiseman was an enjoyable glimmer into the thoughts and ideas of an amazing filmmaker. His story about filming “Belfast,Maine” and getting the critical sequence of the teacher talking about Moby Dick was an exciting example of random luck and synchronicity. It was as if his intent, thoughts, and energy brought it into being. I admire his brave and unflinching choice of subject matter for his films. He goes to the places that most people would want to avoid and he exposes what its really all about. He shows and tells it like it is and helps raise awareness about conditions and aspects of life and society that need work or at the very least, a good, honest viewing. I enjoyed reading about his editing approach and system. I found it to be a helpful summary on how to go about editing a large body of work. It’s made clear that its a long hard process that takes a good deal of patience and filtering to come to a cohesive, rhythmic, and flowing film. “Elements of the Documentary” laid out the wide possibilities of documentary film. It touched on the picture, sound, point of view, time, development, and structure. Things that happen in the picture of documentaries include action footage, people talking, re-enactments, library footage, graphics, and blank screen. In the department of sound, documentaries utilize voice-over, narration, synchronous sound, sound effects, music, and silence. The point of view of the film can be single point of view, multiple point of view, omniscient, personal, and reflexive. In single point of view the film is channeled through a main character. Multiple character point of view is a good way to show cause and effect, social processes, and multiple perspectives within a intertwined group of individuals. The omniscient point of view is taken to convey a God-like observing presence that expresses a collective vision. The personal point of view is used to express the point of view of the director. The reflexive point of view informs the audience that films are “created, structured articulations of the filmmaker and not authentic, truthful, objective records”. Then there are the different categories of documentary such as the event-centered film, the process film, the journey film, the walled-city film, and the historical film. The article provides many examples of fine documentary filmmaking. I want to watch as many of the mentioned films as possible because many of them sounded very interesting. The article enriched my comprehension and appreciation of the documentary film.

In his article, “Connoisseur of Chaos”, John Hanhardt explores the life of photographer and filmmaker Robert Frank, a man who constantly struggled to discover his place in the world. To view the world, Frank used the camera as his eyes, recognizing but at the same time fearing its powerful ability to truthfully capture its subjects. Consequently, he was engaged in a relentless battle with the camera; feelings of pleasure and trepidation characterized the filmmaking process. In his quest to come to terms with the world around him, he realized that “[he was] always doing the same images—[he was] always looking outside, trying to look inside. Trying to tell something that’s true. But maybe nothing is really true. Except what’s out there. And what’s out there is always different” (Home Improvements, 1985). As Frank searched for truth, the notion of a secure world steadily crumbled, and what was made apparent was the restlessness he felt. Wandering around the vast city and fields, Frank experienced vulnerability, which enabled him to discover the chaos that is so pervasive in life. In the same way, he had “holes drilled into [his photographs], effacing the photographs as stillness. This process of change [violated] the defining stability of the photograph, allowing it, like Frank himself, to enter into the flow of life” (73). In the past, camera work was limited to creating cinematic productions that were stiff and polished. Frank’s film, Pull My Daisy, had “the beat sensibility of anarchic fun and self-parody, and of the trickster—the person who disrupts and throws into relief the world around him” (75). It seems that the aspect of uncertainty created a kind of strength, as there were no clear cut boundaries to define one’s capabilities. People began to find freedom and truth in unpredictability. Randomness was a more accurate portrayal of how life was supposed to be. While the actors in the film played themselves, exploring their place in society and in relation to other people, the media responded positively, recognizing a need for that kind of honest, pure cinema. However, Frank avoided the idea of film as art for the sake of art and instead filmed personal experiences and interests, creating a body of work that encompassed both elements of story-telling and documentary. What resulted was the binding of life and art as well as the rebuilding of self and society. Frank realized that there will always be artificial and constructed cinema despite efforts to break down its form. However, all he could do was acknowledge his own complexities, make connections with the people he loved, and use the beatnik, trickster nature to deal with life’s endless array of problems. His films were expressions of the drives and desires of artists; they essentially explored inner chaos and the inherent possibilities for change within humans. What really drove his narrative was his quest to establish an honest sense of identity and a stable sense of place. Ultimately, Frank’s quest ended not in a static sense of identity but in a conscious malleability.

Belton’s article, “Looking Through Video,” is a very detailed and rather lengthy article about the difference between video and film. From previous exposure to different movies and TV shows, I have always noticed that there is a difference between the two simply judging from their quality and appearance on screen. However, after having read the extensive article in which Belton explains their differences in reference to sound and so forth, I was left more confused. There are so many other qualities and differences that I had been unaware of, including the processes of how they are both produced. He discusses how video’s literal translation means: “I see,” yet he later states how it involves sound, way of production, and other aspects as well. Upon rereading the article, the differences became a little more evident. From my understanding of the article, video’s “technology is essentially the technology of sound transmission, recording, and reproduction”(63), a more electrical process, as opposed to the mechanical production of film, modeled after the telegraph and phonograph in which actual notched strips of paper are used to reproduce the images. Despite my confusion, I found Belton’s distinctions clearer after he provided examples of video (newscasts, television shows, sportscasts) and film (generally movies you see in theaters). The Sharff article, “The Art of Seeing, The Art of Looking,” was much more straightforward and an interesting read. Sharff stresses that we take notice of Hitchcock’s “skillful use of cinema language” (3). As he points out, Hitchcock utilizes the bold images, camera angles, and movements of both the camera and the subjects in front of the camera as a language of their own rather than relying completely on dialogue. “[O]ne-third of Rear Window is a bona fide silent film with incidental music or sound effects; in addition, the actorial performances contain some silent fim mannerism…” (5). With minimal dialogue, the viewers are able to discover and observe things along with the protagonist, almost as if they were in the film experiencing life within the film. Sharff discusses Hitchcock’s film Rear Window and explains the creative genius of the film’s direction. By removing the third person point of view, the film is instead shot in the “seers” perspective. This gives the viewers more engagement and involvement with the film and the characters within it. Sharff also points out the more subtle yet intentional usage of props or surroundings, like the cat or stairs, which help transition scenes or camera angles, etc. Overall the articles were helpful in explaining the many different aspects of film and video that may not be obvious to the critical eye. However, Belton’s article is confusing to those not familiar with the technicalities of film and video production and seems like it could have been explained clearer and more concise.

The article on mise-en-scene opened my mind to all the various areas and efforts that go into effective and powerful filmmaking. I enjoyed how the writer laid down the strengths and importance of setting, costume, lighting, the acting style of the performers, and the patterning of mise-en-scene elements in space and time. I like to think of mise-en-scene as an elaborate code of signals and cues that tell a story or create a feeling in an enticing and powerful way. I enjoy the special attention, subtleties, and secrets that film can provide for a keen and perceptive eye. The article made it clear that there’s no limit to the variety of style and expression latent in mise-en-scene. The article also tackles the awkward idea of realism in cinema. I think that’s an interesting idea because reality is whatever an individual wants it to be. I thought the article on Gregg Toland was inspiring. I’m glad that he stuck to his vision, was able to share it with the world, and effectively push the art of film forward. I want to watch his films now, especially “The Long Voyage Home” due to Soderbergh’s comment that, “It looks like it was filmed tomorrow.” John Belton’s article “Looking Through Video: The Psychology of Video and Film” brought up some interesting distinctions between video and film that I had previously been unaware of. For example, I did not know that video had its origins in sound technology, the telegraph, telephone, and phonograph. I learned that video and film both relied on similar sound recording technology for their own development, but are otherwise completely different. Video is a technology of sound transmission, recording, and reproduction. Film is described as a process that transforms and deliberates and it consists of whole images rather than the pixilated images of video that are constantly in the process of becoming and thereby imbuing video with a sense of immediacy and presentness. I thought that was an interesting comparison. The different types of film and video provide a diverse palette of “looks” that come with their own unique psychological impact. They each depict time and place in their own special way. In my opinion, film casts its images in a more organic, beautiful, rich, and flattering light. Images seen through video have a more harsh, radioactive, buzzing, and dry virtual reality quality to them. Film has a higher contrast ratio that more closely matches the human eye, while video’s color process fails to reproduce the full color spectrum leading to the distortion of colors. In “The Art of Seeing, The Art of Looking”, Stefan Sharff does a great job of highlighting ,picking apart, and explaining the great aspects, techniques, and nuances of Hitchcock’s classic “Rear Window”. Sharff provides some helpful concepts to keep in mind while creating a work of art, such as the Pythagorean principle of aesthetics which emphasizes harmony, completeness, and consistency. Something can have the appearance of incompleteness but that aspect can be a part of its completeness. Then there’s being consistently inconsistent and having a harmony of chaos. In the end these principles are still felt. Other things to think about are the language of images, rhythm and texture in film, the system of “grammatical arrangements of cinesthetic structures”, and sequence of meaning.

Belton’s purpose in writing “Looking through Video,” is to establish a distinct difference between video and cinema. This is a difference that the author makes very clear, however some aspects of this difference will soon be obsolete. In the theater, video is reaching the level of film. Video in today’s world is becoming more and more an acceptable media for cinema. Many major motion pictures digital video has a significant role, particularly in Scary Movie 4, Superman Returns, Star Wars Episode II, and Star Wars Episode III, and especially 28 Days Later, where almost the entire film was shot on video. (Wikipedia) The differences between the two mediums at least at the highest end are becoming more and more subtle. It is only a matter of time before video can match or surpass the resolution of film. The other points Belton makes about the differences between video and film outside of the cinema are much more relevant. Belton mentions that video has a much more realistic feel, less of a fantasy world vibe. I can understand this as everyone has a video camera and everyone makes videos, and most of these are done very unprofessionally. It is only natural to associate video with real life. However in the higher end, HD video much of that feel should be lost. If everyone had film cameras and were making home movies from 35mm cameras than film would seem to be more ‘realistic.’ It is only because video is so inexpensive that it has the ‘realistic’ feel. The technology that video employs is no less ‘beautiful’ it is only that films have had their place in the cinema and have shot so professionally, that people have become accustomed to that look. It is only a matter of time before technology takes video to the same level, or even above the level of film. //In Sharff’s article he is attempting to bestow the title of The Best Directed Hitchcock film on Rear Window. Sharff goes through the film showing the reader the many ways in which Hitchcock has masterfully done this or that throughout the movie. However, I believe that Sharff gives Hitchcock too much credit. Hitchcock is an incredible director, but I can’t help but wonder how many of the shots were already described by the screenwriter. Was Hitchcock just following the directions of his masterful screenwriter? Maybe I’m not completely familiar with the actual job description of the director, but I have glanced at scripts and I know sometimes the screenwriter explicitly states, camera pans from ‘left to right side of room.’ The directions can be very exact and I think before Sharff can go on praising Hitchcock he should address this concern. //For the purposes of this response I going to assume Hitchcock deserves all the credit and made all the decisions in filming Rear Window. Sharff brought up an interesting paradox when filming. It is a technique that Hitchcock likes to use. That is to film much of the movie as if it is a silent movie. Without dialogue the viewer’s attention is more focused on what is on the screen. It makes the images more powerful, yet at the same time you lose dialogue, which in most films is an incredibly important part of the film. This is why Hitchcock compromises, and films about 35% of Rear Window as a silent movie. - Devin Bernhardt

Hitchcock's Rear Window Stefan Sharff in his attempt to depict the subject of cinema art brings Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window as one of the most important films, which, as he describes it, is full of art. The author of the splendid article “The Art of Looking into Hitchcock’s Rear Window” supports his argument by demonstrating that the movie is full in principles of aesthetics as harmony, completeness and consistency. Although I know how important Hitchcock has been in this art, at this point of my reading I was expecting how Sharff would be able to link all of these flambuoyant words into a –movie-. In reality I was not aware of the infinite approaches that can be made to a film; specially this type of film from the Master Alfred Hitchcock. The avant-gardism in this film is the Hitchcock’s innovation of exploring the “notion of looking” as the author states; Sharff highlights that 35 percent of the movie has no dialogue an therefore is silent. My view is that Hitchcock takes advantage of this silent to focus the viewer into the depth of his scenes. I also admire the way Stefan Sharff conveys, and convince us, the readers, of his, as he calls it, responsibility, which is to “convince the reader that a number of forms are unique to cinema and, when skillfully manipulated by artist, can result in a superb high vernacular”. The film uniqueness remains in the way Hitchcock plays with the reality of the viewer, the reality of the protagonist, and at the same time, with the reality of the scenes that the protagonist and viewer are looking at the same time. The scenes are almost as Matryoshka dolls, or nest Russian dolls, that once you open the first one you really do not know how many are inside and you have to open the next one and so on. But indeed, and again, I was not aware of the entire details and analysis of this film until I submerged my self into Sharff’s article. Sharff emphasizes that the core of the film is based on the notion of looking, and he also states that Hitchcock compels the viewer in the audience of seeing with the single direction of the protagonist who, in addition, is the anchor of the film; for me, I insist, is the Matryoshka doll effect. It is important to hightlight the analysis of Sharff in terms of framing. He underlines that the small windows’ scenes turn into the frames of small movies that in reality form the big film. Every window has a story and its protagonist, and the viewer has already a story to see in the big movie and the protagonist. It is interesting as well the analysis that the author does in relation with Hitchcock’s ability to training, as Sharff calls it, the viewer by assambling the visual information in a manner that the viewer could remember them and be familiar with the objects. Lastly, I want to bring Stefan Sharff words that gave me the clear view of the importance of Rear Window; he says that the ability to create such familiar images is the most complicated part of the language of cinema, and that it requires the highest degree of orchestration in framing. My conclusion is that though the advantages of modernity in film, one part remains equally demanding nowadays as in old times: that is the art of manipulating a scene in silence. We, as viewers, can get lost or bored in a scene that has no anchor in a small prospective; the familiar images, as Sharff calls them, that guide us to continue with the scenes are the core of visual information to follow the film and Hitchcock was a master in this arts. Looking Through Video I enjoyed the entire history that John Belton in his article “Looking Through Video” relates behind video; however, his article essentially has given me a sour taste. I was really happy enjoying the video movies instead of the real film on big theatres; although some times it was annoying not to be sure about details such as check if the mirror in a scene has bevel, and check the kind of fabric that is used for the clothing because I am the class of person who enjoys all of those details. Nevertheless, I was happy with –video-movies- at home until I read John Belton’s article. I realized that video is not cinema and that it merely looks like cinema. The three practices that have to be done to a film to alter it in order to broadcast it, either in television or video, as painting and scanning, colorization, and lexiconning are indeed the best tools for squeezing a film to produce its last penny, but the quality is suffering enormously. The good news is that everybody has the option to watch it despite its quality, but that is the highest price to pay. We have to appreciate video for what it is instead of link it to film; although, that was the way we learn about video, and it takes time to separate them.

John Benton in his article “Looking through Video: The Psychology of Video and Film”, clearly exposes the difference between video and film. In addition, the result of Benton’s comparison of film and video demonstrate that both technologies though they share traits such as capturing an image are greatly separated by the development of consecutive technology that develop for each other. An interesting remark Benton mentions on his article are the predecessors of video film and cinema. For instance he mentions that film developed from photography while video amazingly developed from the telegraph and the telephone and finally cinema developed from the phonograph. As Benton tries to differentiate between these factors, video and film he clearly defines that video, though it involves images is greatly affected by sound. This fact, though it would contradict the meaning of video and moreover what the general viewer is used to “viewing”, makes a point across, without audio there would be no image in video. While on the other hand, film does not necessarily need audio to expose its imagery. Benton, clearly exposes that video and film are also different by the way the images is captured, while film is a chemical procedure, video is done electronically thus the quality of video is less. Moreover as seen in the film done by Edward P. Dove, “Crowfilms” video and film look, and also feel different to the viewer. The resolution, the effect and the perception of the different cameras prove Benton’s point and comparison between film and video. While film seemed more tri dimensional and realistic, video contained more pixels which made the image slightly different to film. In addition, as Benton proceed explaining the concepts of film and video technology he clearly shows that video tends to grotesquely modify film. Benton develops his argument by listing the process by which film is transformed to video. From its beginnings as film, then as transmission for the television ending as a videotape or video disc. In other words video in a way, mutilates the concept of film. The great difference between film and video is that video can be transmitted anywhere, while film can only be showed in a certain limited space. Sadly for the common viewer and for the industry film and video are seeing as the same or as copies of the same image. This of course is false by the many number of differences between the two mediums. Finally it could be emphasized that both technologies though different and in a way similar, and even though video and film are seen as one, film represents and art that has not yet been modernized by our changing times. –Diego Ley

Rear Window, Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpiece about an observant man and his observation of an atrocious incident, displays the director’s ability to create innovative as well as retrospective cinema. In an excerpt from “The Art of Looking in Hitchcock’s Rear Window,” by Stefan Sharff, the author closely examines and critiques the director’s famed shooting methods and his faculty of placing the audience through the art of looking. In fact, one third of the movie is silent, allowing the viewers to primarily focus on what is within the scene rather than being sidetracked in the actors’ dialogue. Hitchcock makes good use of mise-en-scene, in which for almost every window the protagonist sees, there is a set of different characters with dissimilar lifestyles. However, the characters are not introduced to the audience through spoken words like in most movies today. Instead, Hitchcock allows the audience to become acquainted with these distinctive characters by achieving the simple technique of moving the camera from one point to another. By slowly and quickly panning from window to window, the audience is able to determine the characters’ qualities based in their actions rather than words. An example of this method is embedded in the opening scene in which Sharff describes the subtle images that Hitchcock captured to introduce the main character, L.B. Jefferies. From exploring the room’s interior to smaller details such as a camera, cast, and wheelchair, one can tell that Jefferies is a man whom went through great misfortune and has nothing left but his isolation from the outside world. I believe that this is one of the most effective techniques to allow the audience to look into the character’s history and what he is able to contribute to the story. Another technique Sharff pointed out is Hitchcock’s use of lengthy silent shots in most of his movies, as if they were pieces of a silent film. So instead of taking a step forward in filmmaking, Hitchcock stays put and pays a tribute to the values of a silent film. As a result, a masterpiece is created. This is evident in the wheat field scene in North by Northwest in which the central character is attacked by a nearby plane. Rear Window is no exception. Each window Jefferies sees is like a frame shot to tell a narrative with characters to convey that story. Of course, these scenes are all silent except for the ambient sounds of the city. This is because Hitchcock wants to position the audience into the eyes of Jefferies, therefore controlling their range of vision. After reading the excerpt, I am more interested into Hitchcock’s works and his methods of shooting. I will be sure to keep this in mind whenever I watch more of his work.

In John Belton’s “Psychology of Video and Film”, John Belton tries to explain the difference between video and film. He tries to separate the two by depicting their technology. He explains how video is created through catching clips on tape and having “manipulations” made through data and then reproducing it on tape to be shown. As for film, clips are captured on film and then edited through computer and finally reproduced back on film. In going through different processes, Belton argues that there is a difference in the product in the end, especially in quality and its uses (such as video is for TV and film is for documentaries and movies). In my opinion, I do not support his views. I disagree that they are completely different. The fact that something is made on film and something made on tape doesn’t change the how an event can be captured. Both of them can be stored on computer. Both of them can be modified by programs and both of them can be shown on projections. Because we have that ability, then there isn’t much difference in the product. I understand that in filming and video taping there may be a difference in quality, but in going through digital editing, both products are the same. It is up to the director to show the beauty of a scene. In the movie “Rear Window” Alfred Hitchcock, I praise Hitchcock’s ability in showing perspective. In the scene where the main character is staring out his window, you see different types of people, people such as a lonely woman, a woman who juggles between men, and a marriage that is going bad. When the main character is staring out of his window looking at other people’s lives, Hitchcock makes his point that everyone has their own problems and the only person who can solve their problems are themselves. For example, when the main character is arguing with his girlfriend, you see that all the problems he saw in other people’s lives are of no use in solving his. He cannot use any of the other people problems as an example to solve his. Another point that I think Hitchcock is trying to bring across are humans’ in ability to see problems with an open mind. For example, the main character doesn’t seem mindful about other people’s feelings. He only sees life from a narrow point of view in which he cares only for himself. In one scene, he hijacks someone’s car to get away from a plane crash. It was selfish of him to steal a car to get away from his own problems. And in the argument with his girlfriend, he doesn’t seem to understand his girlfriend’s need to be with him. It seems logical to have a break in the relationship because of his career, but it doesn’t seem reasonable that he isn’t doing anything to make his girlfriend feel better. All he asks is “When are you coming back?” which shows he cares only for his own pleasures. One little teaser that one may bring up is his inability to care about other people’s privacy. He has not right to stare into other people’s lives and make it into his own entertainment.

“The Art of Seeing, The Art of Looking” is very interesting in it’s analysis of Alfred Hitchcock’s, Rear Window. The article states that the film “responds to the Pythagorean principle of aesthetics, demonstrating harmony, completeness and consistency”, but that it also “contains a core of solid normalcy” (67). Hitchcock seems to have masterfully combined art and ‘normalcy’. The other films we have watched such as the short films from Lumiere et Compagnie, Crow Film and Flat are very artfully filmed, but lack normalcy in both their plots and their actual cinematographic qualities. But Hitchcock seems to have created a piece that can function for both a mainstream audience as well as maintain an artful rendering. The piece is very image oriented, which can be seen even in the action scenes. Though the movie has little dialogue, it is still fast past. As seen in class in the another Hitchcock film, the scenes are very well shot in that they pay special attention to symmetry, which can be seen in the short scene in the field, where the protagonist must out run a plane. Most of the images in this scene incorporate the use of lines of symmetry, the road, the fields, etc. It also requires the viewer to remember ‘familiar images’. This engages the viewer, and ‘sharpens their visual memory’. Overall, I agree that the film is aesthetically appealing, while also maintaining the ability to engage a wide range of viewers. Thought the article “Looking Through Video: The Psychology of Video and film”, by John Belton, confused me at first, but I began to get a better sense for the difference between film and video by the end. His argument was very unique, in that he proposed that video is a form of “sound technology” (55) rather than “image technology” (61). I found it very interesting that film is more of a photographic process, and video relates more to live broadcast and is a digital, electronic process. Both types come with their own implied meanings. Video has become associated with the “immediacy” (68), and film has gone beyond the photograph, which is the past, and is regarded as a “temporally deliberated present” (68). Another thing I found to be very interesting is the fact that the ratio of lights to darks of 35 and 16 mm films match the ratio of human vision, while video doesn’t even come near. The distinction between film and video are confusing most likely due to the idea of video art. Video art does not have the same immediacy as live broadcast, and does not even fall into the same genre, which makes it hard to decipher between film and video art. As we have seen in class, it is very easy to detect the difference between video and film. This can be seen in Flat is Beautiful, which was shot with a 16mm and a pixel camera. The pixel camera is a very obvious form of video, but the film Crow film, is a much more subtle comparison of the two forms. Crow Film depicts a man who films crows using various types of cameras. The difference between the two cameras is noticeable when they are shown in succession. Though video has come very far, one interesting fact mentioned in the article states that “high-definition television is barely equivalent of 16mm film” (64). The difference between film and video is apparent, but an understanding of their various mechanical and association differences is important for understanding the “identity of each medium” (65).

In this weeks reading, we were introduced to the term video, and how it has evolved. We also were shown a breakdown on how Alfred Hitchcock’s film, Rear Window, interacted with the audience. I thought that the discussion on how video had first started out, and how it is now viewed was interesting. One normally does not think of video in the terms it was in the paper. How often do we sit and think where the term video originated from? We all know that video is the sister term to audio, but we all just intuitively know that. I think today, there are many words that we use so regularly, and that just flow that we do not even stop to think about how the terms have changed over time to mean something that perhaps was not originally intended, or to cover many other things that were not originally intended. For example, how video had grown to cover not only the picture part of a film, but the reproduction method. Videotapes and video are practically interchangeable terms now. Who takes the time to say the whole phrase “Videotape” or “Videocassette” when one can simply say “video.” I also could not help but notice how this article seems very dated now. We do not only use videos now, but technology is quickly turning to DVDs and other forms of reproducing film. It might be interesting to look at how this might affect the evolution of film to come. For the movie Rear Window, I thought the discussion about seeing through a third person, the main character of the movie, was a very interesting technique, and one that we rarely focus on. I know when I watch movies, this one being no exception, I do not focus on the fact that what I am viewing is be chosen by what the character is seeing. It is hard to imagine how much thought has to be put into what is viewed by whom, either the character, or only the audience. Depending what the director choices to show the audience appears to be very important to the movement of the narrative.

The article ‘Looking Through Video: The Psychology of video and film’ provided me with a new perspective and insight on the concepts of film, video, and cinema. Although I had already known the technical developmental difference between film and video, it was interesting to learn the origins of both. Before reading the article, I had never considered that video begins with sound, as video is a sound technology. It was interesting to learn how the term ‘video’ has evolved over the years. Previously, the word film nearly meant the visual component of a televised signal but not people attempt to use the word to replace the word film or cinema. Also, the information about the development of television broadcasting was very intriguing. In comparison to film, television sends programming instantaneously while film is more carefully planned and methodical. When learning about videotaping, I found the following lines very useful and though provoking, “…television and videotape are purely mechanical forms of reproduction. Their value lies primarily in the value of the things they reproduce…” Although some may seem film as lessoning the value of cinema, it is also increasing the popularity of producing theatrical movies. Although the article was very informational and useful, some parts of it were confusing. I think that Belton used the term video to interchangeably when he was explaining different concepts. Also, the word film and cinema were both used to mean the same thing, which also cause some kind of confusion. I believe that the article would have been more informational if it were more direct and specific to a certain topic. It somewhat skipped around to many different topics, such as bouncing from VCR to colorization etc. Overall, I learned quite a bit from the article, which will benefit me in the future. After reading the article “The Art of Seeing, The Art of Looking”, I wish I had first viewed more of Hitchcock’s film Rear Window. After reading I was interested to learn that a large percent of the film has no dialogue. If a film can still be entertaining and interesting with some scenes only using visuals that are a sign of a successful filmmaker. From the parts of the film that I did see, it was fascinating to see how Hitchcock manipulated the scenes so that the audience was only seeing what Jefferies could see out of his window. The shots and the concept of the film are very creative. It is refreshing to be reminded that films could be made with a lot of creativity before the use of special effects and computer technology. Hitchcock was smart in making this film because he truly thought about how he could capture the audience’s attention. Hitchcock forces the audience to pay attention to the visuals in the movie due to the lack of dialogue. With no dialogue to explain what is going on in the movie, viewers must pay close to attention to every character, setting, and action that is taking place in the film.

Although I knew basic mechanical difference between film and video, “Looking Through Video: The Psychology of Video and Film,” by John Belton, gave me more essential differences between the two. Especially how the video was created was interesting. I have never thought that video is created based on the telegraph and telephone, and film was based on photography, photochemistry and persistence of vision. This difference is huge in terms of how video was created to inform or showing something to audience in distance, and how film was created as a mean of entertainment. Although Belton argues that the differences between the two are still huge, I think the appearance of digital media is changing the role of film and video. There are now digital camcorders out there that are close to the quality of film. With DVDs, quality, especially the contrast and colors, has significantly improved. In fact, most feature films now use digital entirely in the production. Hence, I think the different meanings in the terms film and video that Belton addresses are no longer distinctive. I found the analysis of the “Rear Window” in “The Art of Looking in Hitchcock’s Rear Window” by Stefan Sharff very interesting and enlightening. When I watched a part of “Rear Window” in class, I had a hard time trying to understand the meanings behind the windows. Although I noticed that the film was well shot in terms of framing, I did not notice the deep meaning behind mise-en-scene. I did not pay attention to the little details such as what specifically shot inside Jefferies’ apartment, numbers and size of windows situated across the courtyard and people living there, and how much silence can have meanings to the story. It was also enlightening that a camera movement that seems so plain can have a meaning. I would not have thought that an open scene with a cat and simple camera movement can have a recall effect in later in the story. I have noticed that a similar recall is used in “Identity” by James Mangold. In the beginning scene where a person is flipping through a lot of documents, there is a scratch paper with eight figures. As you watch the movie, the truth reveals that all the people involved in the murder at a motel were Malcolm Rivers’ MPD identities. Since I have never learned how you can analyze a film, after reading this article, I learned many different ways and perspective – although not all – to watch a film. I still haven’t seen the whole “Rear Window,” so it would be very interesting to watch it through having what I read in this article in mind.

Belton’s article, “Looking Through Video,” is a very detailed and rather lengthy article about the difference between video and film. From previous exposure to different movies and TV shows, I have always noticed that there is a difference between the two simply judging from their quality and appearance on screen. However, after having read the extensive article in which Belton explains their differences in reference to sound and so forth, I was left more confused. There are so many other qualities and differences that I had been unaware of, including the processes of how they are both produced. He discusses how video’s literal translation means: “I see,” yet he later states how it involves sound, way of production, and other aspects as well. Upon rereading the article, the differences became a little more evident. From my understanding of the article, video’s “technology is essentially the technology of sound transmission, recording, and reproduction”(63), a more electrical process, as opposed to the mechanical production of film, modeled after the telegraph and phonograph in which actual notched strips of paper are used to reproduce the images. Despite my confusion, I found Belton’s distinctions clearer after he provided examples of video (newscasts, television shows, sportscasts) and film (generally movies you see in theaters). The Sharff article, “The Art of Seeing, The Art of Looking,” was much more straightforward and an interesting read. Sharff stresses that we take notice of Hitchcock’s “skillful use of cinema language” (3). As he points out, Hitchcock utilizes the bold images, camera angles, and movements of both the camera and the subjects in front of the camera as a language of their own rather than relying completely on dialogue. “[O]ne-third of Rear Window is a bona fide silent film with incidental music or sound effects; in addition, the actorial performances contain some silent fim mannerism…” (5). With minimal dialogue, the viewers are able to discover and observe things along with the protagonist, almost as if they were in the film experiencing life within the film. Sharff discusses Hitchcock’s film Rear Window and explains the creative genius of the film’s direction. By removing the third person point of view, the film is instead shot in the “seers” perspective. This gives the viewers more engagement and involvement with the film and the characters within it. Sharff also points out the more subtle yet intentional usage of props or surroundings, like the cat or stairs, which help transition scenes or camera angles, etc. Overall the articles were helpful in explaining the many different aspects of film and video that may not be obvious to the critical eye. However, Belton’s article is confusing to those not familiar with the technicalities of film and video production and seems like it could have been explained clearer and more concise.

“Looking Through Video: The Psychology of Video and Film” by John Belton was not very clear to me. The more I read of it, the more confused I became. I found myself having to re-read several paragraphs I had just read simply to understand the connections Belton was attempting to make between the word “video” and television and videotape, not to mention the extremely unclear descriptions of the difference between video and film. Maybe I have a different idea of what video and film are that has been etched in my brain and thus am unable to grasp the concept of video that he was trying to convey, but the Belton piece was not very convincing or comprehensible. I definitely did not find this piece interesting at all. I was expecting the piece to discuss concepts of filming and film-making, but I was left with no such thing. It was quite lengthy for not really getting anywhere or discussing what the first part indicates it will. The other piece, “The Art of Looking In Hitchcock’s Rear Window,” however, was far more interesting and easy to understand. Sharff did a great job discussing Hitchcock’s technique and ways of film-making. Seeing part of Rear Window in class helped to understand the piece even more. Sharff mentioned parts of the film and the way it was filmed that I had not noticed when I watched it. It was nice to read about the method Hitchcock used to film Rear Window and how a big part of it is silent without making it noticeable to the audience. Also, the idea of filming from the protagonist’s perspective was great. It makes one feel as though he or she is actually present and can see for him/herself what is going on in the vicinity. Another great aspect of the piece was the way Sharff broke down the film for the reader. Again, Sharff did a great job revealing the “tricks” that Hitchcock used to make the film. For example, Sharff explained that in the beginning of the film, Hitchcock showed the protagonist sleeping in his apartment and panned out to show the contents of his apartment. Even though there was no dialogue and no real action by any of the characters, the scene revealed a lot about the protagonist and gave an introduction to the movie and the character. Through that scene, the viewers were able to deduce that the protagonist, Jeffries, was a photo journalist who had just broken his leg and thus was forced to move around in a wheelchair. Overall, the Sharff piece was definitely a lot better defined and conveyed to the reader. Whereas the Belton piece lacked in clarity, the Sharff piece possessed a clear understanding of the point the author was aiming to make. I found myself extremely bored with the article by Belton and conversely extremely intrigued by the article by Sharff. “The Art of Looking In Hitchcock’s Rear Window” was actually inspirational in that it gave me ideas of what and how to film.

What a viewer commits to memory is a direct result of mise-en-scene. Because mise-en-scene signifies the director’s control over what appears in the frame, what information one retains is dependent on what the director wishes to emphasize. Choices of setting and costume function to reinforce narrative and highlight themes, while lighting brings to attention certain objects or actions the director deems significant. Particularly interesting is the way a simple shadow created to fall at a certain angle can dramatically change a viewer’s experience. The changes in light, shape, and movement are used to catch the attention of the viewer and create depth in the scene. Mise-en-scene is powerful as it can control not only what we look at, but also when we look at it. After reading Stefan Shariff’s article, The Art of Seeing, The Art of Looking, it is evident that Alfred Hitchcock demonstrates a mastery of mise-en-scene. He effectively relates the system of mise-en-scene to the narrative system of the film. For instance, in Rear Window, although the film is about a temporarily handicapped photojournalist who looks into the windows of his neighbors, Hitchcock frames the plots in the windows in a creative and eccentric manner. A narrative that seemed relatively lackluster is given a magical quality because of Hitchcock’s peculiar image succession. Viewers are fed images of a vibrant community made up of “the young-dancer in her two-window apartment, who in different stages of undress exercises, dancing almost continuously while doing chores; the musician […] Miss Lonelyhearts, as the protagonist calls her, a sad figure going through many crises as seen through her three-window apartment; a newlywed couple with their one small window; and most important, directly across, a four-window second-floor apartment occupied by a traveling salesman” (5-6). The purpose of the behavior of figures is to support and develop the cause-effect aspect of the narrative. As the protagonist, Jeffries, becomes increasingly suspicious of the salesman’s behavior, he becomes an investigator set out to solve a possible homicide, endangering his life in the process. The audience perceives only what Jeffries sees; thus, “he guides us, we follow him” (5). Drama builds accordingly because the viewer is not omniscient; one bases his conclusions on what is seen through Jeffries’ eyes. Shariff accurately maintains that Hitchcock has created an interesting limitation of space. Additionally, Shariff brings to focus Hitchcock’s incorporation of two different modes of camera bearing, which intensifies the contrast between Jeffries’ life and the life he observes across. While the moving camera captures the realistic scenes in the film such as the mundane surroundings of his apartment and the dialogue between Jeffries and his girlfriend, the scenes involving the actions of his neighbors are fragmented and silent, much like the framework of a dream. Hitchcock’s ability to create familiarity for the most ordinary items is remarkable. Although the imagery may not be central to the narrative, the recurrences “leave the viewer with a peculiar sense of fulfillment, a bit of a thrill” (9). Hitchcock seems to be focused on thrilling his audience and sharpening their visual memory. The intense fragmentation ignites suspense and causes viewers to form their own conclusions, while slow disclosure enables them to train the eye to focus on a presented scene. Either way, Hitchcock makes cinema infinitely more exciting by engaging the viewer in myriad ways.

Not that many people would be able to answer the question of how video and film are different. I know I wouldn’t, but after reading “Looking Through Video: The Psychology of Video and Film” by John Belton I now have a better understanding of the two mediums. However, I still believe that I wouldn’t be able to answer the question on the distinction of video and film because it requires a deeper understanding in that field and not just an article from a reader. Some may say there is little distinction between video and film; some do not care if there is dissimilarity because it is just entertainment to them, and others argue that there is a huge difference between video and film. According to Belton, video and film are inherently different in numerous ways. Belton argues that video is a “medium of transmission”, transmitting electronic signals instead of mechanically moving from scene to scene like in a film. Video is said to be continuous while film is not continuous because film consist of images that are shown one by one at a fast speed. In videos there are no images that are stored; it all has to do with transmission or the reproduction of the original. Unlike film, video does not transform what it records, but when it does transform it is just a copy of the film or it “looks” like the original. Belton explains how when films go to video it is not the same because scenes are cropped to fit regular screens and some scenes may be edited or deleted for time purposes or irrelevance. Belton clearly states the differences between the two mediums and how they are both unique in their own ways. Video and film are different and one is not better than the other. Belton focused more on video and in the excerpt from “The Art of Looking in Hitchcock’s Rear Window” by Stefan Sharff, Sharff focuses on film/cinema art. Sharff examines Hitchcock’s Rear Window and explains how it is a masterpiece with all kinds of techniques put into one. It really is a wonderful film, with barely any dialogue and frames that are “creative, eccentric and somehow abstract”. Hitchcock uses very little or tight space and shows us a unique way of looking and perceiving. Hitchcock’s film is a great example of mise-en-scene where he uses the whole frame and the viewers perceives what Hitchcock wants them to see. Sometimes the viewer is in the eyes of the protagonist and sometimes the audience knows more than the protagonist. Sharff’s article helped me better understand mise-en-scene, cinema art and even the use of space. So little space was used, but it was still a great film. Video and film are different and the understanding of them will constantly be changing. These articles were very interesting and very informative. Before reading these articles I didn’t know much about video and film, now I am amazed and I certainly learned a lot.

I thought it was interesting the way the author of The Art of Looking in Hitchock’s Rear Window began his essay: he explains to the reader why this particular 1950’s classic deserves analysis, especially for the purpose of understanding “the grammatization of his cinema language”. In the essay, the reader—without necessarily having seen this movie in full length—slowly begins to understand why it is that this movie “unavoidably” deals with the subject of cinema art. Cinema art, by definition, encompasses all film that distinguish themselves through stylistic uniqueness. As Sharff goes on to describe, “Cinema art transforms the photographic ‘mirror to reality’ into a ‘cinema reality’ by introducing rhythm and texture.” Hitchcock, having spanned the era of the television in full length, embodies both rhythm and texture superbly in this film, and Sharff touches upon these in detail. Indeed, the film provides the viewer with a basic sense of intimacy with the protagonist, since the movie begins with the viewer’s perception of reality through Jeffries’s eyes. Stylistically, this invokes a sense of curiosity in the viewer and, as Sharff mentions, “the audience sees mostly what the protagonist chooses to observe.” Through this method, I think Hitchcock succeeds in drawing the viewer into the action of the movie and within the interests of the characters as representatives of this action. Sharff’s analysis of the “hierarchy of forms in his framing” derived for me what I believe Hitchcock’s primary purpose had been all along: to create an image within an image that will function as a parallel for the audiences’ inclusion in the actions of the characters. This idea of creating “the screens of the small movies that are a part of the big film” is not only stylistically unique enough to place this film under the category of “cinema art”, but it is an element Hitchcock applies to penetrate the viewer with a sense of theatrical involvement, as though the viewer himself is Jeffries and he is “spying” on the suspicious actions of his neighbor. As Sharff articulates in several parts of his essay, the role of sound changes the quality of the film, to promote Hitchock’s stylistic mannerisms in film directing. Sharff describes Hitchcock’s ability to make the silent screen talk louder than words, which he calls “silent-film acting”; in my opinion, this glorifies Hitchcock’s communicative skills, since eliminating words forces the viewer to pay attention to something else (words are omitted for a reason, we think!). The director probably gained this skill of silently extending a message on the screen through his experience with silent films; that Hitchcock chooses to make this film 35% silent despite the sound-available video-technology existing at the time simply marks his skills in film-making. The one thing I found most intriguing of all is Sharff’s description of the camera’s ability to introduce the protagonist without the use of words. Sharff writes, “…this brief introductory biography of our protagonist is executed by a moving camera and in silent fashion, without any oral commentary…is important as a stylistic imprint, since the film promotes the primacy of visual information and the merits of silent film.” Hitchcock’s focus on the “visual” rather than the “oral” is what recognizes the importance of this movie as it is relevant to the development of modern film. This revolutionary style of “defining” the characters through the lens of the camera is a method commonly employed by directors of many movies that have followed Rear Window. Alfred Hitchcock truly turned the world of cinema art (which would later sprout a strictly “indie film” branch) into a license every director desires for theatrical success.

As Stefan Sharff tries to demonstrate, cinema art can be depicted as a work composed by using Hitchcock’s rear window as his example. Sharff attempt is to give a clear explanation of the subject of cinema art. The language of images in Rear Window includes extended silent sections—entirely image-dependent. Almost 35 percent of this film is silent. Cinema art concentrates on scrutinizing the film language, its quality and peculiar image succession and its aesthetic value. It transforms the photographic “mirror to reality” into a “cinema reality” by introducing rhythm and texture. In Rear Window, the protagonist is the “seer,” while the viewer sees him seeing as well as what he sees. This amazing relationship is complicated by the notion that the audience sees mostly what the protagonist chooses to observe. This is my favorite thing about this film. Hitchcock’s art is arranged in the forms of hierarchical layers such as framing. Most of the viewed actions are through the windows situated across the courtyard which become the frames for the screens of the screens of the small movies that are a part of the big film. Subjects are a community of people. This film has a unique way of looking and perceiving. He also uses his cinema language to cultivate the art of seeing, unique to his film. Viewer’s memory of objects is in a way so they can be stored as familiar images. The moving camera in this film is used in a flamboyant way, contiguously with fragmentation. Hitchcock pays special attention to symmetry as the absolute condition for aesthetic phrasing. Overall Hitchcock’s strategy is to make the viewers more attentive by sharpening their visual memory: information here circulates in silent form, without commentary. Most likely, free from clutter or oral data, the mind pays more attention to what it sees when the presentation is precise and contains unflagging aesthetic value. Moreover, the propensity for slow disclosure is in itself a source of gratification unique to cinema language. I personally enjoyed how this film differs from many other movies and films I have seen. Watching the entire film helped me to understand Sharff’s points better.

As a beginner, learning about history of film and its techniques and concepts, I found this article very interesting. In Looking Through Video” John Belton defined the differences between film and video by presenting video as a sound technology contrasted with image technology. To understand film and video, you must understand their constantly changing relationships. This article helped to best understand how the history of film has developed. Video technology developed from sound technology as opposed to film which developed from still photography. Cinema is based on persistence of vision and video is based on the transmission of coded, electric signals across a wire. The motion picture camera was developed by Edison in an attempt to “do for the eye what the phonograph has done for the ear,” by mechanizing the movement of sequential images on film using sprocket holes, a technique which is still used today. In terms of technology, video is entirely different from the cinema except for their shared reliance upon a similar sound recording technology. The VTR, VCR revolution came about from developments in sound technology by engineers such as Ray Dolby who developed Ampex videotape recorder (VTR) in 1956. As a technological format, video—either as television or as videotape differs from film in fairly obvious ways. Television, like radio, is largely a medium of transmission. Television technology takes preconstructed material and relays it to a receiver somewhere else. The notion of television as transmission becomes clearer if we compare broadcast television to film. While film deliberates, television transmits programming more or less instantaneously. Film transforms what it records. Broadcast television, on the other hand, merely transmits programming. The technology of television has been geared geared to transmission, not to transformation when it does transform, it is not television, but a copy of the cinema. In other words, film transmits while video records. Television and videotape are purely mechanical forms of reproduction. Their value lies primarily in the value of the things they reproduce and only secondarily in the mode of their reproduction, that in many instances is identical to the mode of production that they reproduce. Video has as a result also come to be used as a term to describe video art. Video art consists of works produced by the manipulation of video as a medium- either through special video installation pieces, playing with prerecorded material or with synthesized images, through film-like documentaries, through an artist’s own performances recorded on video, or through the production of original works on video that explore the nature of the medium. This notion of video involves video both as broadcast signal and as a recording format. The differences we perceive between the kind of image produced by film and video is, in part, the product of the different technologies each uses to produce an illusion of movement. Video images are always in the process of their own realization. Their association with immediacy and presentness is partly because they are always in the process of coming into being. The different look of film and video has come to have a different value. This value is, in part, a consequence not only of the different ways in which each medium produces the illusion of movement but also of the different ways each has been used. The video “look” has come to signify greater realism and presence. Ironically, the greater the presence of the video image, the greater the absence of that to which it refers. The last interesting technique represented in this article is panning and scanning which is the process by which films are adapted for television. Isolating one segment of the larger picture, introducing pans across the original images, and introducing cuts from one part of the image to another are three ways of it. Panning and scanning is perhaps one of the grossest examples of how video technology has developed to answer the needs off marketplace dominate by commercial television and of the way in which we see films differently through video. Colorization involves the use of computer technology to color films originally shot in black and white. Time compression takes advantage of video, using telecine equipment to accelerate the speed at which a frame of film goes past the telecine’s raster. This article is very interesting. It helped me to understand the difference between film and video and to understand video as a sound technology. Film is perhaps at it’s highest point. Video technology is still rapidly improving. The future of film versus video is still highly debatable.

Not having had much experience in analyzing film myself, there were many aspects of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window that Sharff’s article opened my eyes to. First having seen the film, I wondered to myself how so much could be conveyed through so little dialogue. The film itself had been placed on such a high pedestal, it was almost impossible to not question the reason why. Toward the end of the film, I realized that even without a large amount of conversation Hitchcock conveyed exactly what he intended, using the lack of sound as a method of imparting both immense drama and art through simplicity and limitations. Rather than creating stimulation through fancy camera work, video editing, and ostentatious sets and costume design, Hitchcock decided to take Rear Window to the next level of film by heightening the senses of his audience. Though many modern productions focus primarily on captivating the audience through easy visual and audio stimuli, Hitchcock combines conventional approaches to film with a touch of tradition. He incorporates this relationship throughout the film through the use of two primary camera angles: the usual “audience” perspective as well as that of the protagonist through the lens of his camera. Observing through a flat perspective, I first believed that many aspects of Hitchcock’s film went against what Belton believed to be crucial to the definition of film as a ‘transformed’ recording. Though the film itself had been created in a matter that “framing, camera angle, distance, and/or movement present[ed] a specific view of the event,” (65) the film contained very little post-production sound editing – or so it seemed. In fact, Hitchcock used the lack of sound to his benefit, making an unconventional approach to creating a heightened sense of drama and suspense, which in and of itself became ‘sound editing,’ by the director’s choice to neglect it. Acknowledging this intentional act, I realized just how exhaustive Hitchcock’s understanding of film had been and now appreciate his work to a by far greater degree. After having viewed the various short films created using the cinematographe in Lumiere et Compagnie, it became evident to me that even without the glitz and glam of modern cinema, a film could serve its purpose – filling what little view of frame available though mise en scene. Likewise, a common goal was set by Jacques Tati in his 1967 film Play Time by which Tati utilized the silence of his characters to better allow the viewers to focus on the humor in such simple modern life which otherwise would seem so bland to the senses. Unlike Rear Window, however, Playtime used various settings to create a visual stimulus for the viewer, going against what Hitchcock utilized through his “limitation of space” (69) – something Sharff considered an important aspect of Hitchcock’s art as a compilation of “hierarchical layers” (68). Though unconventional in its mise en scene and dialogue – or lack there of – Hitchcock uses these elements to create a circumstance in which the viewer must learn to listen through sight: a rare activity in a society so eager to speak, and often too restless even to listen.

The earth is a big, solid mass composed of an infinite number of atoms. But the world is a fragile place, held together by the opposing forces of reality, truth and imagination. And according to John Hanhardt, in Robert Frank's hands, "the camera becomes a powerful means to reflect his own place in the world". The article: "Connoisseur of Chaos" written by Hanhardt sounds like a mockupraise of Robert Frank. He runs in circles, praising and criticizing Frank simultaneously. One minute he's oozing admiration: " The film's intensity and rawness derive from its directness, which leaves one with the peculiar impression of having seen people acting like themselves, not simply improvising someone else's story." The next he's decidedly less smitten with Frank: "Frank's films are informed by ironic reluctance to record what he sees, owing to his fear of the camera's ability to capture its subjects. His questioning of the camera's capacity to secure knowledge and truth is the subtext the permeates his films". Although Hanhardt centers his article around the Connoisseur of Chaos himself, Robert Frank, he includes snippets of information and personal opinions on the history of the American independent cinema. He believes that independent cinema is "a body of artistic work that shares in a conscious exploration of modernist aesthetics." Does this mean that Hanhardt only concerns himself with the way that independent cinema looks and not the contextual importance? Hanhardt implies that he believes that independent cinema is made with the modernist perspective. I think that his mention of the camera's as an eye metaphor was very poignant; because I always considered the camera to be an omnipresent eye in cinema, it sees everything. It is a means to " re-envision and thus redefine art" as Hanhardt puts it. Hanhardt recognizes that in today’s modernist driven society, film has almost turned into a medium where it’s only art for arts sake. He praises Frank for resisting that trend and instead staying true to himself by seeking an “ethnical redemption” within himself and among his family and friends. Franks ability to tell the truth through cinema is what makes it so hard for his work to be categorized “within any single genre of filmmaking strategy”. Hanhardt does a stellar job in describing Franks approach to reproducing what he sees in the world with lofty words and beautific ideas, but at times his ramblings only serve to belittle Franks talent. The tone that runs throughout the article reminds me of a pompous, big word dropping writer who believes that his words are gold. But I suppose that if Hanhardt thinks that Robert Frank uses his relationship with the camera as a “powerful means to reflect his own place in the world”, then he surely must use the pen, or word processor, or whatever the case must be, to reflect his own place in the world. Use his words and wit to find his niche in a world that is continually growing more and more avant-garde with each passing day. How can he even begin to compare to these artists of new without pretending to understand them, and then criticizing their achievements?

Rear Window, one of Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpieces in film, is a prime example of quality in cinematography and sound engineering. The film cannot be contested for its excellence. As observed in class, and stated in the reader, the film is “almost 35 percent…silent, without dialogue” giving a sense to what complexity the camera can show. It is similar to that of another Hitchcock film, North by Northwest, in which there is a bus trip scene. When the main character exits a bus in the middle of the desert, the magic of cinema is flexed. I agree with Stefan Sharff in his piece, “The Art of Looking in Hitchcock’s Rear Window, when he states that cinema art is not a “well-defined entity”. I find it’s shots and it’s Technicolor restoration reinforce the perfectly setup shots and symmetrical structure of the subject in the frame. This is an excellent example of Mise-En-Scene because the difficulty and superb execution of the blocking. Whether in Rear Window where the walls separate the movement, give an intimate look into the lives of others, or of the airplane in the shot and the main character in the shot; each represent directly the brilliance of Mr. Hitchcock. He truly is an artist, rather than just a director. As mentioned by Sharff, Rear Window gives a view of the camera through the perception of an onlooker or “Peeping Tom” to further connect the viewer to the scene. Later in the piece, the film is “concerned with cinema itself,” Sharff states. In addition, I agree with him. The unique way of looking at the word and perceiving the views is quite extraordinary. One shot in North by Northwest also is a prime example of cinema itself. In the scene viewed in class is of a bus driving down a road from the NW corner of the screen to the center. The shot had to be from a scaffold, as an airplane was excessively mobile to ensure such stillness in the camera, but it was absolutely amazing the way it was orchestrated. The viewer could see miles in any direction and it truly was, in my opinion, the most beautiful shot I have seen in film. The clarity of the camera is something that does not compare with today’s films and though editing was so primitive, compared to today’s computer non-linear and linear editing and the new generation of HD cameras and DV cameras. Today’s world forces the viewer to see a room, or a street, but does not give the realistic details of cameras of past. The entire scene usually does not work. There is a microphone or a prop out of place, or there is a laugh track that deters from the realistic nature. Lately, the camera has been moved to mobile handy/shaky cam. The realism is modified but not ensured when this happens because the eye does not see shaking normally. It sees clear pictures of its surroundings. Therefore, in an effort to regain quality in film, they have sacrificed beauty. I find the trade off to be unnecessary and unreliable. I almost wish that films were in black and white to ensure that the scene was perfect, and then add the vibrancy of color in postproduction as a bonus. Hitchcock had mastered the art of seeing and Sharff and I agree that he understands the Art of Looking better than almost any director in history does.

“Looking Through Video: The Psychology of Video and Film” by John Belton provides an understanding of the basic differences between film and video. Moreover, while describing the history and development of these two forms of media, their distinctive features become very clear. It was interesting to learn that the cinema has evolved from photography, photochemistry, and the concept of persistence of vision, whereas video can be traced back to the “transmission of coded, electric signals across a wire” as given in the telephone and the telegraph (62). This difference in technology confirms Belton’s statement that “video is not cinema; it only looks like cinema” (63). Belton, however, makes further distinctions between film and video by comparing broadcast television as a form of video to cinema. He states that while television merely “transmits programming”, “it does this more or less instantaneously” (65). Film on the other hand “deliberates”, as “it transforms what it records” (65). If broadcast television in this context refers to what we see on television, I am not sure if I agree with Belton’s statement. Even though there are television shows that focus on transmitting video material instantaneously, there are numerous others that transform video material in artistic ways through strategies borrowed from cinema. Belton here argues that television which transforms “is not television, but a copy of the cinema” (65). But, even if this type of television was to be a copy of the cinema, is it fair to say that the medium of television is merely a “mechanical form of reproduction” (66)? The technological status of video is constantly changing. Moreover, cinematic strategies are being used in television productions and films are being produced through the use of video cameras. Therefore, I think it is necessary to not only re-perceive cinema, but also the meaning of the term video. I agree, however, with Belton’s statement that the movement in film is “intermittent or non-continuous”, whereas the movement in video is “continuous” (67). Even though this is not always the case, I believe that movement in film tends to play with the viewer’s mind, while video movement is more direct and uninterrupted. I think Rear Window by Alfred Hitchcock is a good example of a film featuring non-continuous movement. As mentioned by Stefan Sharff in “The Art of Seeing, The Art of Looking”, Hitchcock “uses his cinema language to cultivate the art of seeing” (8). The action of the movie is not necessarily presented in a continuous or obvious manner. Moreover, the story of the film is not only told through the use of language, but also through the use of scenes with silent passages. Objects are presented in an unexpected fashion and have to be memorized by the viewer. Furthermore, the viewer is required to pay attention to the course of the film in order to be able to assemble each piece in order to understand the story of the film. I think that this strategy of filmmaking differs tremendously from the bulk of television programming, in which the information presented is mostly structured and does not require the viewer to memorize or to watch attentively. However, I think we should not place film above video. Both are sophisticated media and both can be used to transform. A good example for this is the television series Star Trek. Created within the medium of video for television, it was picked up by the cinema…

The whole “Looking through video: The psychology of video and film” by John Belton was not a very good article. I don’t think he distinguished the differences between film and video very well, mostly because he wrote in such a confusing manner. I did gain a better understanding of the history of how film and video developed, though. But to me, there is really no special need to over analyze the difference between video and film. On the other hand, Stefan Sharff’s excerpt was very well done. When we watched a clip of the film discussed in the excerpt, I did not notice all the subtle nuances Hitchcock employed in making the film. For example, I did not even think about the fact that the film is centered around us (the audience) viewing the film through the direction of the protagonist. As he looks at the life of those across from him, the camera follows his eyesight. Normally, I would not even notice such a thing; that the director is manipulating my eyes and mind in such a way. In addition, normally I would have thought that the setting for the film is boring. Based on the article, I am guessing that the whole movie takes place within the confines of the protagonist’s room and whatever he can see through his window. It doesn’t seem like anything exciting could happen in such a setting. However, the article does a good job of convincing me otherwise. The fact is that even confined to a small apartment, the protagonist is not mentally confined to that small space. Physically, he can’t move much because he has a broken leg. But by looking through other people’s windows, he and hence we as the audience, can see into the lives of other people, which is interesting because they don’t notice that there are observers. Hitchcock is definitely a master of mise-en-scene. Through his expert use of camera and setting, he is able to advance the story along as he wishes it to be told. For example, he provides the protagonist with binoculars as a realist way to deal with the fact that the image size changes. I thought that was pretty clever. The article also mentions that Hitchcock cleverly trains our eyes to remember certain parts that later plays a role in another scene. For example, there is a part where the camera trails a cat as it moves along the garden and then the camera leaves the cat and continues to pan up. Later, as we watch Lisa and the nurse walk up the steps to investigate the murder, we recall the scene with the cat as it strolls up the steps. This leaves us with a feeling of suspense. Finally, the film is almost a silent film. We can only see the lives of those across the window, but most of the time, we can’t hear them. Even so, the story doesn’t suffer without a lot of dialogue. In fact, there is almost no need for dialogue most of the time. The actions of those in the movie are so precise and articulate that we can understand them without need for commentary. All in all, Stefan Sharff does a fabulous job of analyzing Hitchcock’s movie. It was both interesting and informative.

Alfred Hitchcock is one of the few masters of Hollywood who has reached a legendary status. His name nearly as instantly recognized and cherished as are his works. It is therefore unsurprising that there are a great number of critics and fans who would place his work upon a didactic pedestal, that others may examine in detail the particulars which make his works so highly esteemed. Fan and critic both, Stefan Sharff’s piece “The Art of Looking In Hitchcock’s Rear Window” serves as an excellent work for the purpose of drawing a casual observer’s eye to more significant and elaborate details than would typically be observed; it is only through the understanding of the cause of greatness that we may understand the greatness itself. The primary trait responsible for Hitchcock’s mastery of film is one which is vividly perceivable in each of his works, but is thematically more represented in “Rear Window.” This quality is, naturally, Hitchcock’s ability to frame action and thus direct precisely the attention of his viewers. In “Rear Window,” Hitchcock uses this trait to force us to identify more closely with the protagonist, to see through his eyes that we may understand his perspective in its entirety. However this cinematic device is not limited to that sole purpose—In Sharff’s words: At the outset of the film, for example, the floating camera, after exploring the general geography of the inner courtyard, comes upon the protagonist, who is sleeping. Thus, the audience is seeing (on its own) something the sleeping fellow, of course, does not…Such deviations temporarily destabilize us. (Sharff, 4) Thus, the same strategy which establishes an anchor of stability for the viewer can easily be reversed and used to add tension and drama to an otherwise straightforward event. The viewer witnessing irrefutable evidence of the murders later in the film, whilst Jefferies is asleep suddenly and violently throws the viewer from “one step behind” the protagonist to “one step ahead,” and adds an unexpected degree of separation from the protagonist, enabling a more dramatic unfurling of action than would otherwise have been possible. Another benefit of the “protagonist’s-eye” camera which Sharff identifies is the clever placement of extremely subtle details. Small landmarks in the other resident’s viewable homes allow the viewers to instantly identify which local they have suddenly begun viewing, and contribute to the accessibility and feasibility of the film’s nearly-silent status (said status being yet another of Hitchcock’s tools utilized in nearly every one of his works, but one which will not be discussed in this response.) A final point, brushed on by Sharff of the Hitchcock film, is the metacognition encouraged by watching a film about a man watching actions. Of all of Sharff’s observations of “Rear Window” this singular trait is the most provocative and multi-faceted. By itself, the act of watching a film may separate us from ourselves, and place us in the position of whatever protagonist there be; yet when the protagonist is watching others, are we separated from him by the same notion? It would seem that logically, this would force the role of “protagonist” onto whomever Jefferies is monitoring at any given moment, yet that is clearly not the case. Rather, the separation from Jefferies puts us in a position more closely related to ourselves; that is, by watching a watcher, we are forced to think about our status as watching more. Sharff believes these tools are the foundations upon which a master has formulated his genius. Given the success and undeniable love and popularity our culture holds for Hitchcock, it would be impossible to disagree.

Having just a basic knowledge of the differences between film and video, I enjoyed John Belton’s analysis of the similarities and differences between the mediums of film and video. From quite an early age I understood that there was a difference between the look, feel, and quality of film footage and video footage. The look and “feel” of video on the screen was nothing in comparison to that of film. In watching home movies, I would wonder why the video quality looked more “real” than the detached-looking and very stylized quality that film possessed. Belton makes several points on how film is a photochemical process powered through mechanical power to convey the moving images. This differs from how video is produced wherein video is completely electronic and not photochemical. This observation was not a new idea to me. I already knew there was a big difference in these two forms. What was new to me was Belton’s analysis of the transformation of cinema as a device mass-experienced by the population in a video format. Belton explained that the quality of film, the saturation of light, the “feel” of the film, and grain is lost – or at least transformed when copied onto video or DVD format. It took me a while to figure out that indeed the quality of a movie is quite different when viewed on a projector and when presented on a television. The most obvious difference I had always noticed what in basic things such a movie being cropped to fit the screen, and edited for time and content. It never really dawned on me that there would be more subtle changes being made in the presentation of film onto video. Then it occurred to me. The same thing that happens in scanning original photographs with a color scanner happens exactly the same when converting to video. The film is solid – tangible – the light has saturated through the various layers of photographic sensitive sheets and imprinted a marking into a single 35mm frame. The sharpness, clarity and richness of that film – that photograph is very hard to reproduce. Converting these original images digitally, a lot of the vibrancy of color, grain, and clarity of the image is lost in the conversion process. The original imprint is distorted. It may look close to the vibrancy of the original film, but what we are viewing on DVDs is but a manipulated look-alike copy of the primary source. Belton even describes the atmosphere of going to the movies as something that is “different” and special compared to viewing DVDs or video – because this cinematographic experience oh sight and sound is quite different when being replayed digitally on a completely different medium. Of course film would look and sound different presented on video. The means of transmitting the images, Belton states are completely different. The electronic signals that are sent from the tape and fed into a reader which are then presented on a pixilated screen that has a limitation on the amount of colors it can reproduce greatly affects the vibrancy of photographic film projected onto an open screen. There are no electronic parts needed to create and show a film. Mechanical parts move the frames past the projector. Video is not able to do the same since there are no images stored on the actual tape, just electronic signatures formed in rust and other metal compounds. It was fascinating to really sit back and analyze how different forms of media can present an image to an audience. Video and film both have unique artistic qualities to them that can convey varied messages to audiences who are emerging themselves in them. The same movie shot in video and then in film – although same in story and narrative, would have two very different visual and audio effects on the individual watching them. This article made me think about how later my decision to utilize film, video, or both in my work, will affect the way my audience engages in my piece.

In his analysis of cinema art, the author Stefan Sharff finds masterful examples of cinema art in the works of Alfred Hitchcock, specifically his movie Rear Window. In fact, Sharff believes Rear Window to be a true classic, observing the Greek idea of harmony and completeness, inventiveness, and even avant-gardism in the work of Hitchcock. Hitchcock is very much focused on the image projected up on the screen rather than dialogue. Amazingly, 1/3 of Rear Window is without dialogue. It is complex and subtle work, truly reflecting cinematic art. I believe Sharff does quite a remarkable job in exposing the underpinnings of cinematic art and language. By proving each point with examples from Rear Window, Sharff succeeds in describing thoroughly and coherently the systematic basis for cinema: “film language, its quality, the peculiar image succession, its ‘magical’ impact, its aesthetic value” (67). I thought Sharff brought up a great point by saying that skillfull cinematic language creates a world more vibrant and condensed than the real world. To me, that seems to be the essence of movies, to transport a person from the mundane world of everyday experience into a world that reaches for impossible situations and complex stories. Amazing cinema is much more than an ordinary experience. It contains the magic of meaning. Each scene builds upon the one before to an end meaning. Indeed, the core of the film is the idea of looking and observing “across from someone,” according to Sharff (67). In fact, Hitchcock seems to use cinematic techniques to control what we observe, thus, controlling our emotions and our perception of the story unfolding on screen. For example, deviations from the view of the protagonist destabilize the audience watching the film because they have seen something the protagonist has not. Additionally, Hitchcock has two ways in which he presents scenes: the ordinary direct manner with the audience directly seeing what is taking place and the view via Jefferies, the onlooker. Sharff describes the view through the observer as key to the dramatic effect of the story. Is it not true that when we watch a movie, we are like Jefferies, the observer, seeing the world through a framed box? Hitchcock has an incredible ability, the ability to make the most normal and unremarkable of objects into familiar recallable images. By recalling these images in other contexts throughout the movie, the audience feels a greater dramatic impact. Short recalls like the item based biography in the beginning of the movie with the actions of Jefferies quickly following link Jefferies and these items, giving recognizable symbols for the protagonist Jefferies. However, Hitchcock also uses the long distance recall. An example would be the cat in shot 3 walking up the steps, a rather unconnected event at first glance. However, in shot 603 when the Lisa and the nurse are climbing up the steps, we recall the cat, thereby adding to the dramatic tone of the scene. Through his ability to connect scenes together in a precise and meaningful way, Hitchcock has proven his movie Rear Window to be true cinematic art.