Avant-Garde Films "Elegantly" Convey Meaning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HXUhShhmY

The avant-garde film I’d like to analyze is in fact a music video. Although music videos may not appear as serious a subject matter as full length movies, they can convey all the more powerful a message due to their short duration and small time frame to get that message across. One music video which indeed has many possibilities for interpretation and analysis is “Her Morning Elegance” by Oren Lavie. A sweet and placid tune accompanies the video, where stop-motion animation is used to tell a tale of a sleeping girl and her imagination. The entire video consists of different shots of the same aerial view of a bedroom, as if from the ceiling. We see a simple white sheeted mattress in the center. The floor is a simple hardwood, strewn with only a few basic items, such as a lamp, some open books, a coffee cup, and a pair of Keds. The scene begins with a girl with tousled hair sleeping with two pillows and a striped sheet: a minimalistic scene. We see her shifting as she sleeps, an action highlighted by the stop-motion animation. When the lyrics of the song begin, the sheet mysteriously pulls off of her on its own. It lines the bottom of the mattress and magically turns into a street which the still-sleeping girl appears to begin “walking” on. By carefully and individually lining up and shooting shots of the girl in different poses, the video gives the illusion of a girl walking through a moving backdrop. The mattress becomes a stage on which different scenes are acted out. Unlike some of the other avant-garde films we watched, I found this one to have a more comprehensible meaning. For example, at one point she appears to be falling through the sky before finally “crashing” into a blue abyss (created by a blue sheet). Her waving arms and flowing hair help us envision her floating under the ocean. Suddenly swarms of socks seem to dart by her like a school of fish, with one being so bold as to swim over her neck. Lavie uses scenes like these to paint a sort of narrative to accompany the lyrics. This film made me re-think film art by showing me a completed unexpected way to represent the concept of dreaming. I also loved how Lavie was able to juxtapose two different ideas between the lyrics and the visual. When one looks at the lyrics, they seem to describe a girl who is imagining doing the actions we are seeing visually, even citing the word “daydream” in one line. However, the visual contradicts this idea in that she is confined to the dimensions of her bed the entire time, as if her dreams at night, impressive as they are, are still only possible while in her bed. It’s also interesting to note that her eyes remain closed until the very end, when her initial sleeping position is resumed and a close-up of her face shows her eyes open, walking up into reality.

                I believe new movie-viewing practices have definitely changed the way we think about cinema. New technology and modes of filming and viewing movies has also led to changes in the audience’s attitudes of what a movie should be. After the idea of the classical paradigm became popular, it was almost seen as wrong for a movie not to follow that predictable yet audience-pleasing pattern. Now audiences are much more likely to be receptive to films with unpredictable plot twists and unconventional narratives. The same occurred once films were commonly viewed on computers and television sets rather than theaters; all different types of films have a socially expected medium for viewing. For example, one would most likely not want to watch a feature length film on a small computer screen when given the alternative of watching in a theater. In a theater, the enormous screen and dim lighting help transport the audience within the movie, encompassing them with visuals and blaring sound effects. A computer cannot possible convey as powerful a screening. However, different types of videos have been developed specifically for the computer. Many people enjoy filming things they find interesting and posting them on sites like Youtube.com for others to view and comment on. Although these videos are often not the best quality, they are perfectly designed for computer use. The lower quality can be excused in exchange for a faster internet connection to watch the film. These videos are also typically very short in duration, lasting as little as a few seconds. Most people today wouldn’t be willing to go through the effort of driving to a theater to view such a short film, or one of subpar quality. The effortless accessibility of these types of videos available to anyone with internet have made an outlet of demand for novice filmmakers to get recognition. I think it’s wonderful that additional media outlets have allowed more styles of films to be viewed by a majority of people.

The Hurt Locker

The intro scene for The Hurt Locker is indeed very intense. We start off seeing patchy, static-filled images of a rubble-strewn dirt landscape. Shouting Arabic voices are heard in the background. The point of view is from that of a mobile robotic unit designed to examine bombs. As we see the robot revealed from a different camera angle, the camera zooms out to take in the surrounding city of Baghdad in an establishing shot. Iraqi people flee the streets, escorted by U.S. soldiers. The camera movements are jerky, filmed using a handheld camera. The camera occasionally zooms in amid the mass of running people and hectic action to point out where the robot is among the clutter. Camera shots switch between close-ups of the robot, what the robot is recording, and wider shots taking in the people running around, seemingly oblivious to its actions. The camera pulls up to a cloth-covered pile, and we finally see the three soldiers watching the monitor. The robot’s operator Sanborn takes direction for its movement from the captain Thompson. Thompson warily looks up at the natives watching from the surrounding buildings, looking for signs of trouble. The soldiers joke and laugh while they attempt to uncover the pile with the robot, making the situation less tense. The captain describes how the charges will safely detonate the bomb under the cloth, planning out the scenario ahead of time with his other two men. The whole situation seems commonplace to the team as the casually go through the motions. Suddenly the wagon containing the charges loses a wheel, and Thompson must carry the charges the rest of the way. As the team suits Thompson up, they still maintain their relaxed attitude, joking to each other. Suddenly a strange Iraqi man approaches Sanborn, asking meaningless questions. Sanborn’s relaxed attitude immediately disappears as he angrily yells at the man to back away, telling him it’s not a game. After the minor distraction, the team continues as usual. Thompson carries the wagon the rest of the way to the bomb and lays the charges on top of it. As he begins walking back, the two other teammates began joking about growing grass as a commodity. Suddenly Eldridge notices an Iraqi man with a cell phone in a nearby butcher shop. Sanborn and Eldridge run towards the man, frantically yelling at him to drop the phone. As the intensity of the moment grows, the camera switches shots with increasing frequency. Thompson hears their shouts over the radio and starts to run instead of walk, sensing the urgency of the situation. The Iraqi man dials in a series of numbers, and the bomb can be seen exploding behind the running Thompson. Time slows down, and the explosion goes off in slow motion. Close-ups are shown of the dirt literally flying into the air and a nearby burned car being compacted by the force of the explosion. Time begins flowing normally again, and Thompson is thrown forward by the blast. A close-up shows his helmet is filled with blood. After the blast, he lies motionless on the ground, presumed dead. A cloud of smoke overtakes the scene as it ends.

                Later in the movie, we see Sanborn and Eldridge with their new captain, James. While driving in their Humvee across the desert, the team comes across another military team stranded by a flat tire. They converse casually while the tire is replaced, when suddenly one of the men is shot and killed by a sniper rifle. After a brief second of silence, the captain of the second team shouts out for everyone to take cover. The ground around the men begins to explode with incoming fire. The camera shots quickly flit from one to the next, never filming the same shot for more than one or two seconds. The opening scene had longer durations of shots to capture the more relaxed attitude. In this scene, the men have been caught completely off-guard, unaware of where their attackers are located. This frantic atmosphere is conveyed through the use of cutaways, with the camera shot abruptly changing every few seconds. The audience is similarly thrust into a sense of confusion. The feeling is highlighted when Eldridge calls out, “What are we shooting at?” and Sanborn replies, “I don’t know.” The quick use of cutaways continues until the unit finds something to hide behind and establishes where the shooting is coming from. In both scenes as well as throughout the movie, the editor switches shots at a pace which mirrors the emotional intensity of the action portrayed, helping the audience emphasize with the characters’ situation.

Moments of Choice in "Shark in the Head"

In the Czechslovakian film “Shark in the Head”, the overly artistic nature can be overwhelming at first. The director Procházková’s heavy use of special effects can be confusing and make the plot of the movie hard to find. One reason the plot is elusive results from our inability to determine what is real from what is imaginary. Strange things happen around the protagonist, a schizophrenic old man named Mr. Seman, and at times it is unclear whether anyone else is aware of the things he sees or if they are even real. One scene towards the middle of the film served as a sort of pivot point in the narrative to me, helping to answer this central enigma: Mr. Seman is watching the street absentmindedly out of his window. As night falls, we see him continue to stare outside, unmoving. We see the outside of his apartment building, the street empty and silent. Suddenly we hear music start, and a spotlight illuminates Mr. Seman’s window from outside. Confetti begins falling from the sky, and people appear on the street, dancing and dressed up in party clothes. Everyone is celebrating and laughing, almost as if it’s a New Year’s Eve party. The gaiety of the dancers and their over-the-top costumes also contributes to the theme of childhood and innocence seen in Mr. Seman’s visions. We see him watching them dance with silent amusement. As we look at the partygoers again, the music and dancing stop, everyone turns towards Mr. Seman, and they all throw out their hands towards him, breaking the 4^th wall in the process. We see Mr. Seman again, looking outside, where it is once again silent and empty. The kind woman’s daughter is seen walking down the street in Mr. Seman’s direction. As she passes his window, she stops at his window to spruce up her appearance. The camera assumes a point-of-view shot, showing what Mr. Seman is seeing. We see the daughter as she calmly fixes her hair while the party in the street has once again resumed around her. Strangely she does not seem to notice the partygoers, music, or the confetti flying around her and landing in her hair as she fixes it. The shot continues to flip between the daughter’s and Mr. Seman’s point of view. Whenever we are seeing through the daughter’s eyes, the street is silent and normal. Mr. Seman however, sees a vibrant party going on in the background. The scene ends with a shot from the street of the daughter still primping while Mr. Seman stands watching her in the shadows, only visible to the audience. The director’s inclusion of both characters in the same shot is symbolic of the daughter’s inability to see him in the regular world also. Although her mother’s coercion eventually convinces the daughter to be cordial towards Mr. Seman, she originally resists with irritation. She, nor any of the other characters, can ever truly understand what Mr. Seman sees and feels. At the same time, Mr. Seman is able to use his imagination to see more of the world and people around him than anyone else.

The juxtaposition of these two points of view is crucial to the narrative of “Shark in the Head”, and gives it style. It solidifies the fact that Mr. Seman is indeed hallucinating all of the strange things that happen around him. Up until this point in the film, the fanciful imaginings of Mr. Seman could be interpreted as just that: things he’s simply imagining in his head. It is never told to us in the film that Mr. Seman has schizophrenia; this is told to us by Procházková herself. Without this knowledge, the audience could interpret his child-like imaginations as a simple, harmless way for an old man to fill his days. As soon as we see that his hallucinations actually encompass the world around him by including the daughter, the verity of everything that ever happens around Mr. Seman is suddenly thrown into question. While it might be easy to pick out some things as imaginary, it is impossible to know whether the people themselves are there also, or simply part of a larger delusion. The reason this scene helps the film achieve style is because it establishes Mr. Seman as someone who must have some kind of mental disability or disease. By watching this movie, the audience better understand of how different life would be living with schizophrenia. Rather than including bizarre special effects simply to be strange and “artistic”, the director skillfully employs these effects as a means to personify schizophrenia itself. We are eventually led to question whether his diagnosed “madness” even needs to be corrected, especially after we learn he’s scheduled to go to a mental institution, where he will surely be less happy. Procházková’s ability to raise these deep ethical questions is proof in my mind that this film’s excessive use of manner was an effective tool towards achieving the unique style needed to conjure these thoughts.

"Psycho" blog review

In Jessica Bennett’s review of the movie “Psycho”, I believe she was successful in analyzing the Hermeneutic Code present in the film. The scene she chose to analyze due to its inclusion of a delay was one of the most memorable scenes in all film history. In it, the main character up to this point, Marion, is brutally and unexpectedly murdered. Alfred Hitchcock was a true master of suspense and thrills, making the emergence of this “blocking” delay very sudden and exciting as a result. Up until this point, the movie has had a somewhat typical plot line. Although the inclusion of partial nudity and other social stigmas made the movie rather racy for its time, as a present day viewer, the first half of the film is basically like any other. We follow Marion in her struggle to find an answer to the enigma of the film: will she and Sam, her distant lover, ever be able to live together? This initially sounds like a story of two lovers longing to be together. When a wealthy client of the bank she works for makes an exorbitant deposit of $40,000, we are given a promise of an answer to the enigma, especially when she decides to steal the money and run away to Sam. Even moments before her death, we are led to believe that Marion will return the money she stole, allowing her to live the respectable life she’s always wanted by turning herself in. As she steps in to the shower, the audience has no idea what’s to come. Suddenly a figure whose face is hidden in shadow rips back the curtain and begins stabbing her violently. With no forewarning of this gruesome event, all of the audience’s preconceived notions about how the story will end are abruptly thrown for a loop. Now our knowledge of the answer to this initial enigma is forever blocked. By killing off the main character before the movie was even half over, Hitchcock was able to make what initially seemed like a romance/drama film into a thrilling, suspenseful mystery to find a killer.

Full Metal Jacket

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19870626/REVIEWS/706260302/1023

Right from the beginning, Ebert cites how Kubrick set up the frame of “Full Metal Jacket” similarly to “a set of short stories”, evidence of Ebert analyzing the narrative plot design.  However, after stating this fact, Ebert immediately starts pointing out all of the cinematic clichés present in the film, initially dissuading the reader from wanting to watch this movie. He cites how the film starts out with a strong beginning, giving a brief synopsis of the first half of the movie taking place on Paris Island where the troops underwent training. I thought it was clever how he combined his disappointed opinion of the film at this point while describing the main points at the same time, even mentioning the actors’ real names. Ebert discusses major themes and conflicts of the film’s opening half. He mentions the struggle between the Sergeant and Gomer Pyle, while smoothly transitioning into a description of their final confrontation. Up until this point in the review, Ebert has been giving a brief overview of only a few scenes from the film itself, while mostly sticking to giving critiques on how several of Kubrick’s techniques were disappointing to him. He seems to be giving mostly negative comments, lessening the reader’s desire to see this movie. Ebert does sneak some compliments in throughout the review, but they’re always immediately followed by more criticism. For example, he states that the movie is filled with great shots, but that these great shots are usually ended with a dissatisfying or an inadequate conclusion. It seems to me like Ebert is missing the point of Kubrick’s inclusion of conflicts with no resolution; that was a major tool in his desire to leave unanswered questions for the audience to ponder. Ebert only mentions a few scenes from the second half of the film which takes place in Vietnam. It seems he feels that because the two most “memorable” characters to him, the Sergeant and Gomer Pyle, died before Vietnam was shown, there is no one to really care about or connect to in the latter half of the film. Ebert ends his review by giving several more great moments from the film, acknowledging Kubrick’s talents. But as if answering his previous remarks like objections, he then questions the originality of the film, saying that although the movie had some notable scenes, the concept of a film concerning the Vietnam War had already been done many times before. “Full Metal Jacket” was, according to Ebert, “too little and too late” to be very impressive of its own accord.

                After reading this review, I was a little surprised to discover that Roger Ebert actually didn’t like the movie. Although he sounded harsh from the get-go, his writing style made me believe that he was going to qualify his earlier criticisms later in the review by citing the ingenious moments that made up for any mistakes. This initially would lead the reader to keep an open mind about the film. However, the entire review is mainly an opinion piece, with Ebert stating all the different aspects of the film which he felt were sub-par and overseen in similar movies. I would definitely be persuaded to not watch this film by Ebert’s review. Although he does not use any technical terms to describe the visual literacy of the movie, he uses many sources from other films as supporting evidence, showing that he has at least watched many films and most likely has a wide knowledge of screenplay quality. Because of this, other people would most likely trust Ebert’s review of “Full Metal Jacket” and avoid seeing the movie.