"This Film is Not Yet Rated"

I was shocked when I watched Kirby Dick's documentary on the American film certificate system. You can see what he was trying to do with this film, to show people outside the film business how unfair and broken the system is. It's ironic then that it was this system in the end that stopped his film being seen by a wide audience.

I think what annoyed me the most was how these nameless people on the panel are somehow deemed to be the moral line for a nation of millions of people. I also think its ridiculous to have people with no specific professional training judging films on what effect they may have on an audience. Dick made a good point by suggesting that surely we should be listening to a child psychologist when it comes to deciding how a child could be effected by what they see on screen. He's is not saying anything against the panel, it is just their job, but if they are unable to give specific reasons for their decisions then they shouldn't be making the decisions in the first place.

the 400 blows

The 400 Blows

I found "The 400 blows" to be both interesting and entertaining. Although it does not completely follow the sort of default film structure an audience is used to you remain engrossed throughout. I think the most interesting thing for me was the nature vs. nurture argument it brought up. I may be reading this wrong but I felt that Truffaut was trying to assess what makes a child or a person good or bad. Is someone just born a delinquent or is it the world that changes them? I felt this idea was presented best when the boys went to a Punch and Judy show. In this scene we are shown the innocent faces of the infant children in the crowd watching the show. The puppet show maybe be masked as children's entertainment but the story being told is a very violent one. I think this scene is trying to show that children are born innocent and it is how they are exposed to the world that makes them what they are.

A Fistful of Dollars

I've just finished watching "A fistful of Dollars" for the first time. I thought it might tie in well with us looking at stars and how they were used in hollywood. Do people watch this film because its a classic piece of cinema or do they watch it because they want to see Clint Eastwood swaggering and grimacing around the screen? I suppose its not that good an example because these are the films that really established him as a star. But the character he plays seems to be the model for later Eastwood films; the fierce, quietly intelligent hero. Maybe then this is how a star is created and then used. Audiences loved Clint Eastwood playing that character and would pay their money again and again to see him play it. Studios see that audiences like this and so put him in the same roles and so this "star" image is created. Clint Eastwood is no longer an actor hes a brand the studio can advertise and sell.

My Fake Baby

I had a very mixed reaction whilst watching "My Fake Baby". I think the choice of following those two particular woman was interesting because of the way they contrasted one another. I think the programme makers did this to try and show the wide variety of reasons behind people getting one of these dolls. I also think the womans stories were ones that would bring out a strong emotional response from an audience.

I found the first woman infuriating. This was the woman who had never had children (because she said she was "too busy having fun") and just wanted the perfect baby. Her definition of a perfect baby seemed to be one that was quiet and never in anyway a bother. She seemed to enjoy dolling the babies up in designer gear more than anything else, and pushing them around in her top of the range prams. This belittles the whole reasoning behind having a child. She didnt want a child to love and take care of, she wanted a child so she could have another thing to play with, another thing to try and fill her clearly empty life. Yes, that is some peoples reasoning behind having a child, a way of filling some hole in their life, but shes too selfish to put in the work. If she had a real child she would have to put its needs first. Why do that when she can have a doll made and all she has to think about is her own needs and enjoyment?

I think my angry response shows the quality of the documentary. For a documentary to work the audience must connect to it on an emotional level. If they connect on an emotional level their opinions on the subject will become a lot stronger.

Charity Work

Wrote this on the bus last week. Its not quite perfected but I just needed to get it out of my head.


EXT. high street-day

A charity worker is standing collecting money from passers by

Charity Worker
Help the IFG. Help the IFG?

A man casually puts a few coins in the jar

Charity Worker
Thank you, sir. Help the IFG

A pompous looking gentleman dressed in suit, jacket and bowler hat walks up inquisitively. He pauses, takes a coin, and places it purposely in the Jar.

Charity Worker
Thank you, sir.

Man
(Enthusiastically)
Splendid!

The man stays, staring at the charity worker, with a broad grin on his face.

This lasts an unusually long length of time, the man’s gaze not once shifting from the charity worker. This prompts the charity worker to inquire.

Charity Worker
Can I help you at all?

Man
Oh, im sorry. I was waiting
for you.

Charity Worker
Excuse me?

Man
Well…I just gave you a pound,
my boy. I believe I should get
something for that pound?

Charity Worker
Well you don’t GET anything;
it’s for charity.

MAN
(Confused)
…I’m not following you

CHARITY WORKER
You’re making a donation, not buying
anything.

MAN
Right…I really don’t think you’re getting
this. I have imparted my tender and
you should give me something in return.

CHARITY WORKER
Well…no. You should be happy that you’re giving
Your own money to help support people in the
World who need it the most.

MAN
(chuckling)
Oh, I see.

He pauses for a moment to think…

No, that’s definitely not going to fly.
I’m really going to have to be quite
insistent.

CHARITY WORKER
I don’t really have anything I can give you.

MAN
Well that’s em…

He eyes the mans trousers, interested.

that’s a nice pair of trousers you’re wearing.

CHARITY WORKER
What?

MAN
What sort of size do you take?

CHARITY WORKER
Listen, mate. I cant…

As the Charity Worker is speaking the man removes a revolver from inside his jacket and points it directly at him. There is a concentrated, mad look in his eyes.

MAN
Take them off.


CHARITY WORKER
I cant give you my…

The man cocks the revolver whilst raising one manic eyebrow

Jesus Christ! Alright!

The Charity Worker clearly shocked and confused by his current situation looks from side to side in a vein attempt to acquire some sort of assistance. Finding none and seeing he has no other option he begins awkwardly removing his trousers. The revolver remains trained on him.

There is an uncomfortable silence as he removes them.

Trousers removed he hands them to the man. He takes them with his free hand and hangs them over his arm, feeling the material.

MAN
Ah! Fine material!
Well, good day!

Smiling, the man tips his hat appreciatively and walks off.
The Charity Worker is left shocked and trouser-less.

The Conversation

The Conversation is a thriller set inside the world of surveillance. It follows the story of Harry Caul, an expert in the field of surveillance. He is a man who has little interest in the people he follows and listens to, he seems only to care about getting the job done. It is only after recording the conversation of a young couple that he starts to think about the consequences of what he is doing. He becomes plagued with guilt and in trying to help the young lovers he is caught up in a murder plot.

At the start of this film we are shown a busy city square from above. The camera starts to come down in a slow, swooping zoom. We hear two people having a conversation. We can't make out who it is at first. The camera movement is slow and the conversation isn't particularly interesting but still as I watched this I was instantly sucked in. In fact most of the film follows a similar slow pace but at no point did I find any of it tedious. I was absorbed.

I think one the overwhelming strengths of this film is the character of Harry Caul. He's not a spectacular man though. Yes, his job is interesting but its not particularly exciting. So at first he doesn’t' seem to be the big character that you would expect to drive a film. It is not until he returns home that we really start to understand who Harry Caul is. We start to see it as soon as he comes to the door of his apartment. He has 3 locks on the door, all of which have to be unlocked individually. Once past them and the door is opened a shrill alarm starts to blare. He promptly turns it off. On the floor behind the door he finds a birthday present from the building manager. This prompts him to make a quite passionate call to the manager asking how he knows that it is his birthday and demanding that he have the only key to his apartment. From this we can now see the real Harry Caul. He's one of the best surveillance experts in the world but obsessed with his own privacy and anonymity. He is a supremely conflicted character and one that you can't help but be interested by.

Defying Gravity

Watching this sci-fi pilot "Defying Gravity" on BBC 2. First thing thats hitting me is the way it looks. It just looks naff. Maybe im being too hard on it but the way it looks is really putting me off. Yes, the style they are going for is futuristic and space-age but that doesn't mean they have to bathe everything in bright, sterile white. Its just not interesting to look at. It's also supposed to look realistic but all the white lights and flashing blue gizmos make it look like an episode of Stargate. This is, for me, taking away any feeling of realism. Television is a visual media and it doesnt matter if you have the greatest story ever the audiences first reaction is going to come
from the way it looks.

lets watch the chelsea game instead

My Name is Earl

Started watching My Name is Earl from the start and i'm loving it. Its style of comedy is unique and gives the show a really strong identity. The concept is the real strength though. That list is the ultimate tool for show longevity. Anything could be on it and it can be any length. If the show starts to get stale they can just put something on the list that totally changes it. It makes every episode really unpredictable too because as i said anything can be on that list.

One thing that really annoys me though, and this is true of everything in life, once you get attached to something you always find a downside, you'll find something that just sours the experience. Well I'm watching My Name is Earl and i'm enjoying it, right? I'm watching Jason Lee and thinking ive seen him in stuff before, i should have a quick swatch on wikipedia. And so I go on, have a little read of what he's been in, and just for kicks have a look at the personal section. Nothing destroys my respect for an actor quicker than finding out that they are in fact a member of the "church of scientology". Yes I know people should not be judged for their beliefs and everyone should be allowed to believe in whatever they want. I'm trying to ignore it but I just...cant.

Sound (15th Oct)

Had a full day of sound on thursday. Was actually looking forward to it. As i've said before i dont hold on to technical information very well unless i beat myself over the head with it regularly. Having being off all summer I was expecting there to be quite a few gaps and cracks appearing that i would need to fill in. Fortunaly I picked everything back up quite quickly. I had to go over it later that night but i feel a lot more comfortable now.

Cammy was very good. His understanding of the kit was top-notch and he was able to explain everything very well. His understanding of sound itself was impressive and this meant he was able to really explain things thoroughly.

STRIKE!

This was my second time watching Strike. The first time I watched it was followed by heavy analysis. That pretty much killed the film for me. I thought then that my first experience of the film might have been tainted, that maybe I might enjoy it if I just sat down and watched it. Unfortunately after about 10 minutes in I realised that this wasn’t the case and I just did not enjoy this film.

Putting enjoyment aside for a moment though you have to see how pioneering this film was. The whole concept that two images can be put together to create a third meaning is the basis of modern editing. Without this cinema as we know it would never have developed.

The use of montage at some points may seem a bit heavy handed, for example the slaughtering of the cow mirrored with the slaughter of the workers, but we cant really judge it harshly for that. We are looking back at it with almost 90 years more experience. But there are still some quite strong examples that could hold up in modern cinema, like the scene where horseman are attacking the workers. This is cut with shots of one of the stockholders squeezing juice out of a fruit. This conveys that the workers are being pressured and squeezed in the same way the fruit is.

all things technical

Had a whole day of technical with Ray today. There had been rumblings of some sort of test to see just how much we had let fall out of our heads over the summer. My confidence wasn't fantastic going into it but I think it went not bad. Did reasonably in the multiple choice (8/15) but felt I had a much better crack at the written questions.

I think what let me down in the multiple questions wasn't a lack of understanding but just forgetting information on the kit (numbers, measurements and such). The written questions were more on understanding and experience and I was much more comfortable with that. Holding figures and names in my head has never been easy but I think the test really helped. It showed me that i need to go over the kit information again and get everything nailed down.

In the afternoon we got shown the new tripods we would be using. The ronford baker legs felt so much better than the vintons we used last year. They were solid and secure. I couldnt see them being blown or bumped over easily.

The exciting part though was the new heads. Yes, it seems I have become one of those people who gets excited over camera tripods (I blame you Paul). Both the O'connor head and the Ronford head are a lot better than what we are used to. I do think i prefered the Ronford head overall though. It was straight-forward and gave a really good balance to the camera. The level on the O'conner though does have a little green light in it. I think that sold it for a lot of people.

t'internets a bit big

So I was thinking, discussed Internet searching today in terms of research and the amount of guff we have to sort through and what not. Its crazy just the amount of stuff that is actually on the Internet though. It's just incomprehensibly massive. It brings about the sort of headaches you only usually get from being asked questions like "how big is the universe?", "How can creation be explained?" or "how come in back to the future when Marty goes back to the future there's not a new Marty from that timeline waiting there? 'Cause like...if it’s a new timeline then he never went back in time in the first place...so he's still there. And if he didn’t go back in time in the first place then he hasn’t changed the past so shouldn’t everything be the same as when the film started?" The kind of questions that keep the world up at night. It's why they break your search results into nice, manageable chunks. If they showed you every possibly hit at once it would probably cause your brain to explode, melt, fall out of your nose and then explode again for good measure.

So its probably good getting shown how to search properly before we start a research task. Reading over the sheets, the information we were given on how to narrow down our search looks like it will be really helpful. Before I would have just typed in all the key words and started trundling haphazardly through the hits. It should help hack off some of the guff I mentioned earlier.

Google whacking sounded fun. Yet another tool to add to my mighty procrastination workshop. Thought I might change it a bit though, spice up the broth if you will*. Thought I would try it with Youtube. My work did not progress as well as I would have hoped. My arsenal of nonsensical word groups was failing (bookshelf cat mania, Dr. Asspancake, keanu reeves)
My hope was dwindling, as was my patience, but I mustered the spirit to go for one last epic grasp for glory.
...
No videos found
...
Eureka.

To be fair though the phrase used was:
"Large man sitting in a wheelbarrow eating yesterday's Times"
But it was a victory none the less.



*In reference to this phrase, my father made quite a timid broth earlier. It upset the family.