Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Teaching idea for "Silence of the Lambs" clip
The Silence of the Lambs is one of my favorite movies. I've seen it probably a dozen times, and it never gets old--I seem to notice different things each time I watch it. It goes without saying that it's not exactly a school-appropriate movie, but parts of it are masterful for their camera shots, usually notable for what they don't show. I chose this short clip (starting at 7:34- ending at 8:31) because it would be interesting for students to analyze how suspense is created through the various camera shots.
Here is a link to the clip I used (again, only 7:34-8:31). I'm not cool enough to know how to put it directly on the blog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUjnbbc0iIM&feature=related
In the first few seconds, as Dr. Chilton is talking, tell students to "watch the pen" and write down what happens with it.
A high-angle shot is then used to show Lector and Chilton. Have students analyze why they think the high-angle shot was used here and what it tells us. I think it serves the purpose of showing how alone they are and how vulnerable Lector is. Chilton moves around Lector and gets in his face, whereas Lector is strapped down and unable to move.
Then the camera cuts to a close-up shot of Lector in profile with Chilton standing to his side. Have students discuss this shot as well. Why aren't they shown side-by-side or with Chilton standing in front?
General Thoughts for Discussion
Discuss with students that the genius of this scene is in its subtlety. Without Hannibal using dialogue, facial expressions, or gestures, we can tell he plans to somehow get the pen and use it for...something bad. Hannibal is a different kind of bad guy. He isn't a raving lunatic; indeed, his stoic behavior is what makes him most frightening. This scene cleverly uses understated camera zooms to show us a glimpse into Lector's mind.
There are at least 2 more scenes that I think are just genius for what they don't show. One is where someone describes to Clarice what Lector did to a nurse. He shows her a photo, but we don't see it. He just says that doctors were able to reconstruct the nurse's jaw and save one of her eyes. We don't need to see the picture to get an image of what happened.
The other scene is in a dramatic one in an elevator. The camera shows a body falling down from the elevator ceiling after being shot by police, thinking it was Lector. The body comes down, but we don't see his face, just the shocked expressions of the policemen. Cut to a shot of a man lying in an ambulance. Immediately we know that Lector is the one in the ambulance, thereby having escaped from the police. (OK, maybe the first time I saw it, I didn't realize it wasn't Lector who was killed. I'm gullible like that. I do remember being amazed at the camerawork in this scene, which is saying something, because I'm usually incredibly dense when it comes to the finer points of film).
So even though The Silence of the Lambs isn't exactly school-appropriate, some of its scenes can be carefully chosen and analyzed by students. Love this film!
Here is a link to the clip I used (again, only 7:34-8:31). I'm not cool enough to know how to put it directly on the blog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUjnbbc0iIM&feature=related
In the first few seconds, as Dr. Chilton is talking, tell students to "watch the pen" and write down what happens with it.
- At first, Chilton continually fidgets with the pen as he's taunting Hannibal Lector about being lied to about a possible prison transfer.
- As soon as the assistant leaves the room and Chilton stands up, the camera turns to show the pen lying there.
- Chilton keeps talking in the background--we don't even see him--but the camera continues to zoom in on the pen. This shows us what Lector is really paying attention to.
- Shots alternate between Lector's face and the pen. Ask students what this might mean or what they think will happen later.
A high-angle shot is then used to show Lector and Chilton. Have students analyze why they think the high-angle shot was used here and what it tells us. I think it serves the purpose of showing how alone they are and how vulnerable Lector is. Chilton moves around Lector and gets in his face, whereas Lector is strapped down and unable to move.
Then the camera cuts to a close-up shot of Lector in profile with Chilton standing to his side. Have students discuss this shot as well. Why aren't they shown side-by-side or with Chilton standing in front?
General Thoughts for Discussion
Discuss with students that the genius of this scene is in its subtlety. Without Hannibal using dialogue, facial expressions, or gestures, we can tell he plans to somehow get the pen and use it for...something bad. Hannibal is a different kind of bad guy. He isn't a raving lunatic; indeed, his stoic behavior is what makes him most frightening. This scene cleverly uses understated camera zooms to show us a glimpse into Lector's mind.
There are at least 2 more scenes that I think are just genius for what they don't show. One is where someone describes to Clarice what Lector did to a nurse. He shows her a photo, but we don't see it. He just says that doctors were able to reconstruct the nurse's jaw and save one of her eyes. We don't need to see the picture to get an image of what happened.
The other scene is in a dramatic one in an elevator. The camera shows a body falling down from the elevator ceiling after being shot by police, thinking it was Lector. The body comes down, but we don't see his face, just the shocked expressions of the policemen. Cut to a shot of a man lying in an ambulance. Immediately we know that Lector is the one in the ambulance, thereby having escaped from the police. (OK, maybe the first time I saw it, I didn't realize it wasn't Lector who was killed. I'm gullible like that. I do remember being amazed at the camerawork in this scene, which is saying something, because I'm usually incredibly dense when it comes to the finer points of film).
So even though The Silence of the Lambs isn't exactly school-appropriate, some of its scenes can be carefully chosen and analyzed by students. Love this film!
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Annotated clip of The Truman Show
Here's the link to my annotations of a clip from The Truman Show (it's actually a few clips pieced together): http://ant.umn.edu/vav.php?pid=61473167489250
The movie is about a man named Truman (Jim Carrey) who lives a comfortable, middle-class suburban life, all the while oblivious to the fact that his entire life has been filmed for a reality TV show. Cameras have been on him since birth, and his entire life--his job, his neighborhood, his best friend and wife--is artificial and full of actors who profit off of the popularity of The Truman Show. This clip shows some examples of how the show uses product placement; gradually, the ads become a big part of Truman's "awakening." In the last scene in the clip, Truman realizes his wife is using ad-speak when he's the only one in the room.
The film uses camera shots to show Truman from many different places and points of view. At times, he is filmed from angles suggesting that cameras are hidden all over the neighborhood. Other times, we see Truman directly through another person's camera. And sometimes we see directly through Truman's eyes, suggesting that a camera is on him or following his exact movements at all times. The cameras are shown to us, the audience, only through the lenses.
I think this clip, and the entire film, is incredibly effective. Millions of people enjoy reality shows because they give a glimpse of the strange lives of others we'd never meet in real life. This film allows us to be voyeurs in an unsuspecting (and later, unwilling) man's life, showing how easy it is to be complicit in the exploitation of others. When we see through Truman's eyes, from a camera on/near him, it is especially unsettling. At times, we even see audiences gathered in front of televisions and their genuine emotional reactions to the experiences Truman goes though.
Ultimately, the film shows how the presence of a camera can manipulate a scene and create an artificial environment. Near the end of the film, after Truman realizes his whole life has been a TV show, he says, "Was nothing real?" To me, this is a heartbreaking line that shows how reality TV is really not reality at all. All people, whether they watch reality TV shows or not, should be concerned about the ethics involved. Where is the line between observing and exploiting? To what extent can our own versions of reality be manipulated by what we see? How do we know an advertisement when we see one...or do we? Man, this is great stuff, and The Truman Show is a great movie!
The movie is about a man named Truman (Jim Carrey) who lives a comfortable, middle-class suburban life, all the while oblivious to the fact that his entire life has been filmed for a reality TV show. Cameras have been on him since birth, and his entire life--his job, his neighborhood, his best friend and wife--is artificial and full of actors who profit off of the popularity of The Truman Show. This clip shows some examples of how the show uses product placement; gradually, the ads become a big part of Truman's "awakening." In the last scene in the clip, Truman realizes his wife is using ad-speak when he's the only one in the room.
The film uses camera shots to show Truman from many different places and points of view. At times, he is filmed from angles suggesting that cameras are hidden all over the neighborhood. Other times, we see Truman directly through another person's camera. And sometimes we see directly through Truman's eyes, suggesting that a camera is on him or following his exact movements at all times. The cameras are shown to us, the audience, only through the lenses.
I think this clip, and the entire film, is incredibly effective. Millions of people enjoy reality shows because they give a glimpse of the strange lives of others we'd never meet in real life. This film allows us to be voyeurs in an unsuspecting (and later, unwilling) man's life, showing how easy it is to be complicit in the exploitation of others. When we see through Truman's eyes, from a camera on/near him, it is especially unsettling. At times, we even see audiences gathered in front of televisions and their genuine emotional reactions to the experiences Truman goes though.
Ultimately, the film shows how the presence of a camera can manipulate a scene and create an artificial environment. Near the end of the film, after Truman realizes his whole life has been a TV show, he says, "Was nothing real?" To me, this is a heartbreaking line that shows how reality TV is really not reality at all. All people, whether they watch reality TV shows or not, should be concerned about the ethics involved. Where is the line between observing and exploiting? To what extent can our own versions of reality be manipulated by what we see? How do we know an advertisement when we see one...or do we? Man, this is great stuff, and The Truman Show is a great movie!
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Vlog review
I chose to review a vlog from http://www.duncanspeakman.net/, having randomly clicked on it from the class wiki page. I was surprised to see a video titled "Seoul, South Korea." I'm Korean myself and have traveled there once (summer of 2000), so I was interested to check it out.
The tagline of the video says "Seoul, South Korea. Sunrise to sunset. One photo per minute." The video is simply a collection of photos set to music, and the photos play very rapidly, like a flip book.
The first several images are of coffee cups, shoes, beds, household items. Then the images switch to outdoor city scenes. The images play so quickly it's hard to tell what's going on. All you can see are urban images of sidewalks, food markets, shops, traffic, people walking, and signs.
(I even saw a red swastika sign in there...not sure why). It is definitely an urban scene, not a nature/country scene.
This video doesn't seem heavy on visual rhetoric and does not use any narration, but the piece as a whole is a spastic, quick-flashing snapshot of urban life in Seoul. The music, only a couple repeating notes and a pulsing back tone (almost reminded me of The Postal Service on crack), enhance the rushed feel of the images. A few of the shots of the street were taken at ground level.
I think this video could be a reflection of the hurried, frantic nature of city living. Only a couple places slow down in this video, where the photographer must have taken several quick shots in a row. These images show people coming and going in a park and other scenery. Those slow spots were almost a relief for me while watching the video. Perhaps there is some reason to the pacing of all these images...something telling us to slow down? To comment on the hurried pace of urban daily life? Or am I reading too much into it?
The intended audience for this video would probably be people interested in photography (and/or Korea itself). The only motion comes from the editing of all the photographs in sequence. The photos are basically a collage of images from a visit to Seoul, but the pacing and music are what make it feel so in-your-face.
The tagline of the video says "Seoul, South Korea. Sunrise to sunset. One photo per minute." The video is simply a collection of photos set to music, and the photos play very rapidly, like a flip book.
The first several images are of coffee cups, shoes, beds, household items. Then the images switch to outdoor city scenes. The images play so quickly it's hard to tell what's going on. All you can see are urban images of sidewalks, food markets, shops, traffic, people walking, and signs.
(I even saw a red swastika sign in there...not sure why). It is definitely an urban scene, not a nature/country scene.
This video doesn't seem heavy on visual rhetoric and does not use any narration, but the piece as a whole is a spastic, quick-flashing snapshot of urban life in Seoul. The music, only a couple repeating notes and a pulsing back tone (almost reminded me of The Postal Service on crack), enhance the rushed feel of the images. A few of the shots of the street were taken at ground level.
I think this video could be a reflection of the hurried, frantic nature of city living. Only a couple places slow down in this video, where the photographer must have taken several quick shots in a row. These images show people coming and going in a park and other scenery. Those slow spots were almost a relief for me while watching the video. Perhaps there is some reason to the pacing of all these images...something telling us to slow down? To comment on the hurried pace of urban daily life? Or am I reading too much into it?
The intended audience for this video would probably be people interested in photography (and/or Korea itself). The only motion comes from the editing of all the photographs in sequence. The photos are basically a collage of images from a visit to Seoul, but the pacing and music are what make it feel so in-your-face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)