Use Stagecoach as your model for a classic western and Unforgiven as your model for a revisionist western. Using specific and relevant examples from all three movies discuss how True Grit (2010 version) has both classic and revisionist elements. By specific and relevant, I mean examples that vividly portray the defining traits of a western genre. (Example: "both Stagecoach and True Grit have cowboys and Indians, which makes True Grit a classic western," is too superficial to earn credit.) Finally, explain whether True Grit is ultimately more classic or revisionist, and then interpret what you think the Coen brothers are trying to say thematically by telling their story in that way (classic vs. revisionist).
Your blog entry should consist of 3 main discussions:
1 discussion comparing Stagecoach and True Grit (worth 10 points)
1 discussion comparing Unforgiven and True Grit (worth 10 points)
1 discussion interpreting the theme of True Grit as either a classic or revisionist western (worth 10 points)
30 points total.
*think of these "discussions" as short freewrite responses (1 or 2 paragraphs) rather than full essays. I'm more interested in your ideas and observations than fluent prose and organized structure.
Although today is the only lab time we will have to work on the blog assignment in school, it is not due until the end of the day Friday, March 18.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Sample Blog Entry on New Clip (for Mr. Cheng's use only)
Example clip analysis and commentary
This clip comes from the romantic comedy Before Sunrise (one of my favorites, by the way). In it, the two characters, Celine and Jesse, are just getting to know each other in a listening station at a used record store. Director Richard Linklater uses several techniques to underscore the shy and awkward feeling they have. Obviously, there is no editing, so we are forced to watch the pained and tentative glances. Editing would have undermined the discomfort of their darting eyes, sometimes watching each other, sometimes looking away. The camera, though mostly stationary, is in fact handheld, and the slight wobbles add to the eyewitness feeling that the audience gets. The low angle is actually an eyeline match for the record player, the "third person" in the room. The music is diegetic, but clearly comments on the tentative romance that is developing. Though there may be more room than we realize in the listening station, Linklater keeps Celine and Jesse confined in a medium two-shot, again underscoring that feeling of being trapped. Lighting is high key and natural.
PLEASE NOTE that I chose not to discuss topics like deep focus, costuming, makeup, sound effects, which were not relevant in this particular scene.
This clip comes from the romantic comedy Before Sunrise (one of my favorites, by the way). In it, the two characters, Celine and Jesse, are just getting to know each other in a listening station at a used record store. Director Richard Linklater uses several techniques to underscore the shy and awkward feeling they have. Obviously, there is no editing, so we are forced to watch the pained and tentative glances. Editing would have undermined the discomfort of their darting eyes, sometimes watching each other, sometimes looking away. The camera, though mostly stationary, is in fact handheld, and the slight wobbles add to the eyewitness feeling that the audience gets. The low angle is actually an eyeline match for the record player, the "third person" in the room. The music is diegetic, but clearly comments on the tentative romance that is developing. Though there may be more room than we realize in the listening station, Linklater keeps Celine and Jesse confined in a medium two-shot, again underscoring that feeling of being trapped. Lighting is high key and natural.
PLEASE NOTE that I chose not to discuss topics like deep focus, costuming, makeup, sound effects, which were not relevant in this particular scene.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Online Film Analysis Assignment
Instructions: choose 4 of the 6 clips below and write a 1-paragraph analysis of each, using vocabulary from our Language of Film presentation to discuss its cinematic elements: mise-en-scene, composition, framing, camera angle, camera movement, shot duration, editing, and sound. You do not need to reference every term from the Language of Film presentation; however, you will be expected to focus on the most relevant ones for each clip. Try to write a thoughtful and detailed paragraph for each clip that you choose. Be sure to label each paragraph with the letter of the clip that corresponds to it.
The analysis paragraphs should be written on your blogs. Each paragraph will be worth from 1-5 points based on insightfulness of comments (how well do you observe?), effective application of film terms (how correctly do you use the vocabulary?), thoroughness of discussion (how many different film terms you use?), and quality of writing (and how well you communicate your ideas?). The total blog assignment will be worth 20 points.
Clip A from Ocean's 11 (Steven Soderbergh):
Clip B from Strangers on a Train (Alfred Hitchcock):
Clip C from Silence of the Lambs (Jonathan Demme):
Clip D from Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson):
Clip E from Amadeus (Milos Forman):
Clip F from Zerkalo (The Mirror) (Andrei Tarkovsky):
The analysis paragraphs should be written on your blogs. Each paragraph will be worth from 1-5 points based on insightfulness of comments (how well do you observe?), effective application of film terms (how correctly do you use the vocabulary?), thoroughness of discussion (how many different film terms you use?), and quality of writing (and how well you communicate your ideas?). The total blog assignment will be worth 20 points.
Clip A from Ocean's 11 (Steven Soderbergh):
Clip B from Strangers on a Train (Alfred Hitchcock):
Clip C from Silence of the Lambs (Jonathan Demme):
Clip D from Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson):
Clip E from Amadeus (Milos Forman):
Clip F from Zerkalo (The Mirror) (Andrei Tarkovsky):
Monday, February 14, 2011
Oscar Nominated Rankings
PRE WRITING - For each nominated film (in any order), list at least 3 (more if they come quickly and easily) impressions or thoughts.
SOCIAL NETWORK
1. Great writing
2. Funny
3. Timely
TRUE GRIT
1. Great dialogue
2. Hailey Steinfeld amazing
3. Funny
TOY STORY 3
1.Love depiction of Andy
2. Touching ending
3. Really dark "toy hell" part
4. Star Wars reference with Lotso in dumpster
THE KING'S SPEECH
1. Great acting
2. Nice relationship story
3. Oscar bait
INCEPTION
1. Not as deep as it wishes it were
2. I think the top falls (at least I hope it does)
3. Awesome
WINTER'S BONE
1. noirish
2. Slow in places
3. fascinating world
4. Fantastic lead performance, magnetic
Next, as described in the instruction sheet, rank the films 1-6 and provide an explanation for each ranking that cites literary, theatrical, and cinematic observations, as well as why you ranked this film in relation to the others.
1. Social Network - I loved The Social Network for many reasons, but I think the biggest reason is the writing. So many memorable lines - "I'm 6'3" 220 and there's two of me." "I'm checking your math. Yes, I got that, too." "Don't fish eat other fish? The marlin and the trout?" I could go on and on. I think the story is a reflection of the times, which it could be argued all films are, but this one is so of-the-moment. I think the filmmaking - both the visual style and the editing of 3 or 4 different timelines - is exceptional. And at its heart, it is a story about something universal - the nature of friendship.
2. True Grit - Like the Social Network, this film for me stands out because of its dialogue - but in a totally different way. You just don't hear people talk like that; I don't know if I've ever heard people talk like that. For pure entertainment value, this film and Social Network are the ones I feel like I could watch over and over again (I have, to some extent). Storywise, I don't see anything particularly deep. I think it's a story about friendship or father-daughter relationships, and on that level it works and touches me. Rooster's desperation as he takes Mattie back to town on foot is really powerful. But I don't think it provided me with any real insights into human nature. It is just really well crafted - gorgeous cinematography, fantastic score. And I would be remiss if I did not lavish well-deserved praise on Hailey Steinfeld's performance as Mattie.
3. Inception - As I write this, I'm starting to see that I am basing my rankings mostly on how entertained and wowed as was. Inception, obviously, wowed me in a different way than True Grit or Social Network. Still well written, but more on the level of story construction than dialogue. I don't think the movie is especially deep. I'm not sure it really has anything to say about human nature or perception vs. reality. It's just a fun puzzle (does that top fall or not?) and a brand new way to show kick-butt action. I would equate it to some extent with The Matrix - a really original action picture. Christopher Nolan is an outstanding craftsman. Who can forget that haunting, pounding score. Tom Hardy bursts onto the scene (sorry for the cliche).
4. Winter's Bone - My first thought was to list this one 6th, but in considering the remaining three movies, I think I would say it absorbed me most into its world and characters. It has that indie edge and roughness, and that scene where they find the dad's body really is climactic in narrative, dramatic, and cinematic senses. Like Inception and True Grit, it showed me something I'd never seen before. I really cared about Ree and wanted to see where she went every step of the way. On the other hand, the story was slow in places, and I can't say that I will remember it much a year from now. I don't know if it was a function of the film's budget or a directorial choice, but the stark visuals worked very well.
5. The King's Speech - I must confess that I am biased against this obvious Oscar bait, even though I really enjoyed it. I have trouble getting over the idea that it's a pretty good movie that is being elevated to Best Picture status because of its royal subject matter. I don't think it is a better movie than Social Network (its primary rival for the top award) or even Inception or True Grit. But I am probably more susceptible to obvious thrills like bending cityscapes and cowboys and brainy nerds talking smart. Look, director Tom Hooper does a fantastic job making a movie about a stutter into a compelling drama. And Colin Firth's acting absolutely deserves a nomination (and likely win). The photography is gorgeous, too, from the painting-like composition in some of the shots of Logue's office to the narrow, royal hallways. But even the music belies what light fare this is. It's not fair to call it fluff, but I don't find it hugely weighty.
6. Toy Story 3 - It's hard to separate my feelings about this movie from my son's. He loved it. He got a package of toys of the main characters and played with them as if he was Andy. I did like Toy Story 3, and I saw it several times this summer, but I'm not quite sure I see eye-to-eye with the people who say it's the best one yet or one of the best movies of the year. It's not even my favorite Toy Story movie, which remains #2. I must also admit to perhaps unfairly docking points for being kiddie fare. I know it's not just kiddie fair - I LOVED Wall-E and Up (and would prefer to have seen them nominated in their years - wasn't Up?). I just didn't find Toy Story 3 quite as deep and emotionally resonant. I do admire Pixar's generally life-affirming outlook on life, and I really appreciate their depiction of Andy as a good, well-adjusted teenager (how often do you see that in movies?). Honestly, you could take movies 4, 5, and 6 on this list and scramble the order, and I'd be fine with it. Maybe that's the strongest argument that expanding the field to 10 nominees waters down the category. I think the big separation between the first 3 and the last is that the first 3 wowed me, and I had a gut-level, emotional, "wow" reaction. The last three were more, "that was a good movie." A couple final thoughts - the garbage dump scene is truly harrowing, particularly the music. It's freaking toy hell and felt very fire and brimstone.
SOCIAL NETWORK
1. Great writing
2. Funny
3. Timely
TRUE GRIT
1. Great dialogue
2. Hailey Steinfeld amazing
3. Funny
TOY STORY 3
1.Love depiction of Andy
2. Touching ending
3. Really dark "toy hell" part
4. Star Wars reference with Lotso in dumpster
THE KING'S SPEECH
1. Great acting
2. Nice relationship story
3. Oscar bait
INCEPTION
1. Not as deep as it wishes it were
2. I think the top falls (at least I hope it does)
3. Awesome
WINTER'S BONE
1. noirish
2. Slow in places
3. fascinating world
4. Fantastic lead performance, magnetic
Next, as described in the instruction sheet, rank the films 1-6 and provide an explanation for each ranking that cites literary, theatrical, and cinematic observations, as well as why you ranked this film in relation to the others.
1. Social Network - I loved The Social Network for many reasons, but I think the biggest reason is the writing. So many memorable lines - "I'm 6'3" 220 and there's two of me." "I'm checking your math. Yes, I got that, too." "Don't fish eat other fish? The marlin and the trout?" I could go on and on. I think the story is a reflection of the times, which it could be argued all films are, but this one is so of-the-moment. I think the filmmaking - both the visual style and the editing of 3 or 4 different timelines - is exceptional. And at its heart, it is a story about something universal - the nature of friendship.
2. True Grit - Like the Social Network, this film for me stands out because of its dialogue - but in a totally different way. You just don't hear people talk like that; I don't know if I've ever heard people talk like that. For pure entertainment value, this film and Social Network are the ones I feel like I could watch over and over again (I have, to some extent). Storywise, I don't see anything particularly deep. I think it's a story about friendship or father-daughter relationships, and on that level it works and touches me. Rooster's desperation as he takes Mattie back to town on foot is really powerful. But I don't think it provided me with any real insights into human nature. It is just really well crafted - gorgeous cinematography, fantastic score. And I would be remiss if I did not lavish well-deserved praise on Hailey Steinfeld's performance as Mattie.
3. Inception - As I write this, I'm starting to see that I am basing my rankings mostly on how entertained and wowed as was. Inception, obviously, wowed me in a different way than True Grit or Social Network. Still well written, but more on the level of story construction than dialogue. I don't think the movie is especially deep. I'm not sure it really has anything to say about human nature or perception vs. reality. It's just a fun puzzle (does that top fall or not?) and a brand new way to show kick-butt action. I would equate it to some extent with The Matrix - a really original action picture. Christopher Nolan is an outstanding craftsman. Who can forget that haunting, pounding score. Tom Hardy bursts onto the scene (sorry for the cliche).
4. Winter's Bone - My first thought was to list this one 6th, but in considering the remaining three movies, I think I would say it absorbed me most into its world and characters. It has that indie edge and roughness, and that scene where they find the dad's body really is climactic in narrative, dramatic, and cinematic senses. Like Inception and True Grit, it showed me something I'd never seen before. I really cared about Ree and wanted to see where she went every step of the way. On the other hand, the story was slow in places, and I can't say that I will remember it much a year from now. I don't know if it was a function of the film's budget or a directorial choice, but the stark visuals worked very well.
5. The King's Speech - I must confess that I am biased against this obvious Oscar bait, even though I really enjoyed it. I have trouble getting over the idea that it's a pretty good movie that is being elevated to Best Picture status because of its royal subject matter. I don't think it is a better movie than Social Network (its primary rival for the top award) or even Inception or True Grit. But I am probably more susceptible to obvious thrills like bending cityscapes and cowboys and brainy nerds talking smart. Look, director Tom Hooper does a fantastic job making a movie about a stutter into a compelling drama. And Colin Firth's acting absolutely deserves a nomination (and likely win). The photography is gorgeous, too, from the painting-like composition in some of the shots of Logue's office to the narrow, royal hallways. But even the music belies what light fare this is. It's not fair to call it fluff, but I don't find it hugely weighty.
6. Toy Story 3 - It's hard to separate my feelings about this movie from my son's. He loved it. He got a package of toys of the main characters and played with them as if he was Andy. I did like Toy Story 3, and I saw it several times this summer, but I'm not quite sure I see eye-to-eye with the people who say it's the best one yet or one of the best movies of the year. It's not even my favorite Toy Story movie, which remains #2. I must also admit to perhaps unfairly docking points for being kiddie fare. I know it's not just kiddie fair - I LOVED Wall-E and Up (and would prefer to have seen them nominated in their years - wasn't Up?). I just didn't find Toy Story 3 quite as deep and emotionally resonant. I do admire Pixar's generally life-affirming outlook on life, and I really appreciate their depiction of Andy as a good, well-adjusted teenager (how often do you see that in movies?). Honestly, you could take movies 4, 5, and 6 on this list and scramble the order, and I'd be fine with it. Maybe that's the strongest argument that expanding the field to 10 nominees waters down the category. I think the big separation between the first 3 and the last is that the first 3 wowed me, and I had a gut-level, emotional, "wow" reaction. The last three were more, "that was a good movie." A couple final thoughts - the garbage dump scene is truly harrowing, particularly the music. It's freaking toy hell and felt very fire and brimstone.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
MY FIRST REVIEW (example)
BRAINSTORM - film: The Social Network
1. of the moment
2. rooney mara attractive, a discovery
3. fantastic script, dialogue
4. complicated, interwoven structure
5. funny
6. Eduardo is moral center
7. Let's not forget these are all a bunch of Harvard snobs
8. Justin Timberlake fantastic
9. Theme: you can't have real relationships online
10. good score - Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross - nominated
11. favorite line, "I'm 6-5, 220, and there's two of me"
12. David Fincher - brilliant, getting more mainstream, or at least less macabre
13. a-hole = cool?
14. Aaron Sorkin = snob?
15. Aaron Sorkin's Golden Globe acceptance speech - elite
MY REVIEW - The Social Network
I loved the movie "The Social Network" for all the reasons it has won the majority of end of season awards: it is witty, complex, insightful, well-acted, and of the moment. Still, I can't help feeling a little conflicted about Aaron Sorkin's Golden Globe acceptance speech in which he made a shout-out for elitism. Does that make him a snob (or me deeply insecure)? Probably both are true, but what sits funny with me is how the movie portrays all of these dazzlingingly intelligent and articulate people who - let's face it - most of us would never get a chance to meet. With the exception of Mark Zuckerberg's ex-girlfriend "Erica" - played by the soon to go supernova Rooney Mara - there's really not a regular person in the main cast. Even the moral center of the story is a spoiled rich kid who, according to the script, once made $300,000 in one summer. And yet I'm pretty sure Sorkin's theme - or at least one of them - is that excellence, or being elite, necessarily requires being an a-hole. The Rashida Jones character (again, one of the few sympathetic figures who in all likelihood is a comfortably-living, San Francisco attorney) caps off the movie with the line, "You're not an a-hole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be." The Zuckerberg character isn't consciously pursuing a-holeness, but he states more than once that he wants Facebook to be "cool." So does cool=a-hole? Or do you have to be one to succeed? I think the answer, to a certain extent, is yes, but then a-hole is in the eye of the beholder. There's no objective measure, so at the end of the day, it's this: if I want to achieve a certain level of success, there's no avoiding someone thinking I'm an a-hole, and I'm going to have to be comfortable with that. Anyway, great movie, and I'm realizing, an even more insightful reflection of society than I first noticed.
1. of the moment
2. rooney mara attractive, a discovery
3. fantastic script, dialogue
4. complicated, interwoven structure
5. funny
6. Eduardo is moral center
7. Let's not forget these are all a bunch of Harvard snobs
8. Justin Timberlake fantastic
9. Theme: you can't have real relationships online
10. good score - Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross - nominated
11. favorite line, "I'm 6-5, 220, and there's two of me"
12. David Fincher - brilliant, getting more mainstream, or at least less macabre
13. a-hole = cool?
14. Aaron Sorkin = snob?
15. Aaron Sorkin's Golden Globe acceptance speech - elite
MY REVIEW - The Social Network
I loved the movie "The Social Network" for all the reasons it has won the majority of end of season awards: it is witty, complex, insightful, well-acted, and of the moment. Still, I can't help feeling a little conflicted about Aaron Sorkin's Golden Globe acceptance speech in which he made a shout-out for elitism. Does that make him a snob (or me deeply insecure)? Probably both are true, but what sits funny with me is how the movie portrays all of these dazzlingingly intelligent and articulate people who - let's face it - most of us would never get a chance to meet. With the exception of Mark Zuckerberg's ex-girlfriend "Erica" - played by the soon to go supernova Rooney Mara - there's really not a regular person in the main cast. Even the moral center of the story is a spoiled rich kid who, according to the script, once made $300,000 in one summer. And yet I'm pretty sure Sorkin's theme - or at least one of them - is that excellence, or being elite, necessarily requires being an a-hole. The Rashida Jones character (again, one of the few sympathetic figures who in all likelihood is a comfortably-living, San Francisco attorney) caps off the movie with the line, "You're not an a-hole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be." The Zuckerberg character isn't consciously pursuing a-holeness, but he states more than once that he wants Facebook to be "cool." So does cool=a-hole? Or do you have to be one to succeed? I think the answer, to a certain extent, is yes, but then a-hole is in the eye of the beholder. There's no objective measure, so at the end of the day, it's this: if I want to achieve a certain level of success, there's no avoiding someone thinking I'm an a-hole, and I'm going to have to be comfortable with that. Anyway, great movie, and I'm realizing, an even more insightful reflection of society than I first noticed.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)