The Treasure of Riverside Park

http://www.thirteen.org/sites/reel13/shorts/short-treasure-of-riverside-park/2301/

The Treasure of Riverside Park is a black-and-white short film that focuses on how ones misfortune can lead to another man 's treasure. One of the challenges of filming with absence of diegetic sound is conveying to the audience the message your trying to express. With that comes the acting in terms of how they express their emotions with no dialogue. This tests the actor's true ability as it focus more on the body language the actor uses to express what he/she is feeling. With the short time and no audio, this film does a great job of expressing a clear message to it's audience. The director also shows a diversity of classicism in the shot where the homeless man passing the wealthy man on the bench which really caught my eye. Also the use of black of white, in my mind, adds to this in that black and white are two different colors as are both the wealthy man and the homeless man. I enjoyed the simplicity of the score and how it transcends to a horror feel when the man enters with the knife. From my interpretation, I see that throughout the film, the diamond ring loses it's meaning due to the actions from the upset husband. So essentially, the diamond ring becomes a symbol of hope for the homeless man at the end indicated by the smile of his face. I think when your using a dolly, which this film does many times, your camera movement should be fluid and smooth. In this case, some of the dolly shots should have been either put on a smoother surface or not even put at all. Reason being, unless the shakiness of a shot is the intention of the director to capture realism and suspense, i.e. The Bourne Supremacy, than the camera should be still especially when the tone throughout this film was very simple. Overall, I really enjoyed the simplicity of the film, almost like seeing a French film, and that fact that it was able to express a great deal of ambiguity with removal of audio.

Roger Ebert's 3-D

This article shows the hatred of an aspect of theater projection, 3-D, by the film critic Roger Ebert. This article reads like a editorial in that it expresses one mans opinion on a particular subject with a purpose to leave the reader something to think about. Although it stresses a opinionated article with repetitive uses of "I", it does present interesting points and back these points up with hard facts. Such as the surcharge of 5-7 dollar that 3-D films charge as opposed to the standard 2-D films. From this the author brings up a correlation between the power of advertising and the surcharge which I thought was very interesting. A movie that emphasizes on 3-D in their trailer will most likely attract audiences to their film because of it's 3-D aspect to the film. To what extent does the film show instances of 3-D and how there executed is never mentioned leaving the viewer of the film disgruntled and the executive studios 5-7 dollars richer and happier. When the author brought up how the projection from 3-D films can leave the viewer experiencing nausea and headaches according to medical research, I had a personal experience. After seeing the movies Clash of the Titans and Avatar (2nd time), I left the theater not reflecting on what the movie I saw showcased, rather I reached in my medicine cabinet, pulled out the Advil, and went to bed. I also agree with Ebert on how the Oscar contenders are slowly fading away if this trend of studio executives demanding their directors to film 3-D more as opposed to quality films.

Top 5 Films that would be worse if changed to 3-D
1. The Godfather
2. Dawn of the Dead
3. Jason and the Argonauts
4. The Dark Knight
5. Balto

Locust Valley Film Festival

After watching each and every film that came out of the Film Festival, there was one film that caught my eye in terms of how they presented themselves. The Other Half by a student from Wheatley High School . The main factor that attracted me to this short film was the cinematography for one thing. It was very pristine the way that this student set up the film composition as apposed to a unbalanced mess by some other students. The Other Half was the psychological breakdown of how a surplus amount of schoolwork can ultimately decide the fate of a young student. The opening shot of the dolly in through the school hallways demonstrates the students understanding of lighting. The lighting in this shot is interesting as it appears as the camera moves forward it leaves behind a path of shadows casting on the lockers to the sides where the light is focusing on the main subject, which is the student in this case. The narrative in the background also gives a subtle explanation of the character analysis of this young student as well. The film also explores low key lighting where the subject appears to be in the light while the background is compiled with shadows. In the part where the students appears to be doing his HW in his room, the camera tilts up slowly to add to the calm tone of the audio. You could also note in the classroom scene that the camera dollys to the subject being the student almost as he's the central focus and no one else around him is important with the quick editing dissolve. The young student also does a great job in terms of acting as he using "body language" to his advantage by the clinching of the fists, throwing of the desk and grabbing of his hat. By this gesture, the audience has a better understanding as to what the character faces in terms of emotions. The scene where the student is writing near the library bookshelves shows how ambient lighting can act as an appropriate source of light for the film as well as the dolly. I admired when the director decided to film the fence in the foreground while the actor walks in the mid ground almost symbolizing the way character feels, almost locked up and has no where else to turn to. I find it interesting the director is more of a fan of pans/tilts rather than close ups in this film. The framing of the hand dripping a pool of blood couldn't have been frame much better and with the audio, Mad World, in the background almost creates a perfect environment of what this director is trying to express. Alot of people have disagreed with the way this film ended and to that i disagree. The ending where the student is laying on the his bed covered in his HW sheets reminds me of Robert Deniro in Brazil. Both examples are similar in that these HW papers cause the downfall of this character and are what drive this character to the point of disappearance. For Brazil, it was more of Deniro's despise of capitalism that the very thing he despises, receipts for example, ends up the cause for his disappearance. While both examples may cause an area for questioning each scene accomplishes it's goal in subtle symbolism. My only concern of this film however is that the plot structure is unclear to most audiences and that it could have used more work. Either than that, this film is very poetic and presents a unique style that for a student's work, it surpasses my initial expectations.

The Blind Side

I think it was interesting to see a different outlook on this film as opposed to the majority of criticism that I hear. It's interesting how loose this film is related toward the actual book by Michael Lewis, in the way the main character, Michael Ohrer, acts in the book as opposed to the modified version in the Blind Side. When movies say " based on a true story", they never really say to what extent is it based on. The Texas Chainsaw massacre claims the events that occurred in the film were based on "true events" when in actuality, it was loosely based on the killings of serial killer Ed Gein, by only a small portion. What really set off this in author in particular was how a film like this can be Academy Awarded with a story that is so flawed. I also think that his movies have it's traditional values all mixed up and drift toward the line of what's realistic and whats not. It leaves the audience with the message that with a big heart and a bigger wallet that you have the ability to change someones life. In a different perspective, the director of this film wanted to make a film that targeted a specific audience. He rather cater to a large audience of middle aged Americans than to the minority of people who actually read the book and distinguished the flaws. If you compare the two movies, Dangerous Minds, and , Lean On Me, you notice although they have similar plot structure, there execution is much different. Reason being is in my mind the thought of Morgan Freeman, someone who has has been in the perspective of those inner city kids, has a better understanding as the problems there suffering. For that, i think Morgan Freeman is a more believable character than Michelle Phieffer as a ex-marine, and that audiences can relate to Freeman's character better. As you can see the Blind Side shows it's effort in appealing to a broader audience, yet falls short to believable realism in the plot structure.

Mr.Wells Reviews a Current Film

Metropolis can be classified more than another science fiction film due to the fact that it tackles a great amount of detail which needs to be recognized. The film brings not only film elements to consider but offers movie buffs a great deal of psycho-analytical factors to explore. The H.G. Wells article tears apart Metropolis in a negative way by dissecting flaws in the film's plot as well as accurate information. The major flaw that separates the film and this article is that the article fails to notice the cinematic achievements that Metropolis accomplishes. They rather exploit the "architectural" failures that this film is unreliable with. It also presents an argument involving the worker's ideology and their connection to the "efficient" machine. I especially like how he manages to refer to this movie as "dull" when you have transformation scenes like Mary's, where the lightning is poetic and the effect look impressive for the standards of 1920. The architecture of Metropolis shows signs of Expressionism in which the shots of the futuristic city in the film resemble paintings that came out of the Expressionist era. Wells also forgot to see the intent of the director rather than basing his criticism on "invalid facts" that the film contains. Lang was powerful in showing the dark side of capitalism through shots where the machines would malfunction to the point where it would drive people to insanity. Lang shows his quirkiness through Freder as his character is portrayed comical (wardrobe and facial expressions), yet love struck over Maria to the point where he becomes one of the workers that she shows sympathy towards. Metropolis is an example of pure cinema at it's finest with innovative architecture, influences on future films ( Blade Runner, Brazil), and a certain presence that cannot be matched simply by other sci-fi films

Triumph of the Will

After watching the film, Triumph of the Will (Triumph des Willens) directed by Leni Riefenstahl, I saw how Hitler could be glorified as a national hero. A central theme of unity was displayed profoundly in this film with Hitler as a symbol of a leader for Germany. Throughtout the film, there was back and forth shots between the crowd of peolple and Hitler and this showed how much influence that Hitler had on the people of Germany. Low angle shots and backlighting showed the importance that Hitler had to this movie. You could also notice that Hitler is always framed either by himself or with a highranked official, this is done mostly to direct the attention to the Führer. The intent of this director was not only to show Hitler as a glorified savior but it a clear example of German nationalism at it's finest. The opening sequence of the movie shows signs of Metropolis, with the flying helicopter and the use of minatures. Riefenstahl also experiments with aerial cinematogrophy in the shots where the crowd of German is seen at a overhead. The majority of the speeches by several German leaders had to do with the untiy of the German people. I can't help but notice how this shows early signs of the Soviet Montage era where the movie is set to favor the group rather than the individual. But my observation contradicts with the fact that Hitler potrayed throughout the movie as the idol for the German people to look up to. Tracking shots show the connection between him and the people of Germany. The use of telephoto lens added a sense of realism as if you were in that crowd when Hitler was making the speech.The music is another thing to notice as throughout the movie is always upbeat and and never dull. The crisp sounds of horns and the battering of drums draw your attention on whats going on. It also has an effect of making Hitler's speeches feel more powerful to the viewer. The music is by Richard Wanger's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg. Most of the lighting is ambient and at times, like the night rallys, was dark, spotlight was always shined on Hitler, due to his importance. Although you miss the wrong ideals that came out of Hitler in this movie, you have to appreciate it's film elements like it's creative cinematography and dedication to the German Expressionist era.

A New Perspctive on Films: Strangers on a Train, Psycho

For this entry, I want to take you a ride to what goes on in my mind when I watch films. Personally, I'm not big on literature so movies are my escape from reality in a sense. The two movies that I can recall in my head clearly are Strangers On a Train and Psycho, both directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and fall under the genre Film Noir. Both are shot in black and white so you know that low key lighting is in effect. This lighting is so perfect for the Film Noir genre because the shadows are sharper and the natural light is sharper/bolder. The lighting could also signify something more poetic in such case if a shadow were to cast of a person making them appear larger than they already are, it shows the importance of the character. The lighting also goes hand in hand with mise-en-scene, the objects framed in a given shot. The way a light can be shined on a object shows the objects importance to the film. For example, in Psycho when the light is shined onto the newspaper in Crane's hotel room, what's inside the newspaper, the money, is the root of her paranoia and the curosity of Norman Bates. Alot of what I see in film, I question the purpose of it. You couldn't imagine the amount of questions that race throught my head when I watch ANY movie. Alot of this purpose has to do with the director's intent. The signifcance of director's intent is that it's imporant to know the purpose of a director putting something in a shot that catches your eye and understanding the poetic side of that object. This idea is the root of what mise-en-scene is all about. And with mise-en-scene, objects can be showed more than once, sometimes in a apparent pattern, and this idea of a recurring theme/object is known as a motif. Usually I notice motifs on the second viewing of the movie which are quite significant. The camerawork for these movies were very slow paced, alot of lingering shots, even when it came to moments of suspense, the pace still stayed the same. I guess Hitchcock relied on the score to do all the talking, due to it's frightening tempo that stays consistant. Alot of the audio was sweetned to acheive that level of suspsense in both thrillers. The slashing of the knife in Psycho was an obvious sound effect and the bang that came out of the tennis rackets in Strangers on A Train was louder than usual. What makes me so interested in movies is the characters that you can create. Hitchcock studied the human behavior, but mainly the fears we have in everday life. They evils we hide inside of ourselves or the very evils we try to runaway from. Me personally, I don't judge anyone else's opinions on the way they look at film. On any given day, I can have so much on my mind, but when it comes to watch a movie, my mind is blank and free. If you take a monster from a movie, many people will say "oh i've seen that before, it's not even scary". To that, I think of the makeup artists and the actors themselves who spend 9 hours in a studio just making the face of the monster, kinda like what Boris Karloff did for the orginal Frankentstein. If I see a action movie, I think of how ignorant the actor was before shooting the film, and how many hours it must have taken just to choreograph one scene of fighting. Filmakers test the viewer with imagination in their films, and it takes someone like me, who has a devotion to film, to recognize that.