Intro to Film Class

Final Exam Friday!

2010-12-15T14:36:00.000-08:00

Don't forget your green book/s!

Link of Interest

2010-12-07T13:55:00.001-08:00

Thought you all might be interested in this:
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/careers_in_film_help_cinefamily_raise_money/

Your Final Exam

2010-12-03T13:01:00.000-08:00

...will take place on December 17th, same bat-time, same bat-channel.

Here's the deal with what I want from you for a final: I'll be playing a movie starting at 1pm. Take as many notes as you need to during the movie, keeping in mind everything we've talked about in class this semester. You should bring with you the following materials: any hard copy notes from class, an "examination green book", and your textbook.

After you watch the movie, you will write the following in your green-book:

1 Paragraph each on the movie as it relates to:
--Photography/Special Effects
--Animation (if there is any)
--Mise en Scene
--Movement
--Stunts
--Editing
--Sound/Music
--Acting
--Drama
--Story: (draw the Freytag's Pyramid and note major plot points)
--Writing (Page to Screen if you've read the book)
--Ideology
--Parody/Remake/Meme/Mashup

So you'll have a total of 13-15 paragraphs of material. If you use direct quotes from your book, make sure you note the page number. You should have approximately 2 hours to get this done, which should be sufficient.

Another reminder: We are meeting today (the 3rd), but will NOT have class the 10th.

Introducing Snow White in Pulp Fiction

2010-11-23T10:15:00.000-08:00

Snow White VS. Pulp Fiction

(Scene begins with Vincent walking up to Snow White's door.)

Snow White: The door is open come in, I'm in the back!

(Vincent walks to the back of the house to see Snow White scrubbing the floor)

Vincent: Hi! I see you are cleaning again, well, so we can get out of here soon I went ahead and washed the rest of the dishes for you, get dressed!

(SW goes in the back to get dressed and V turns on some music. He waits patiently as SW gets dressed)

SW: So they call you Vincent Vega? I call you Prince Charming, thanks for washing the dishes.

VV: No problem, that was pretty suave huh?

SW: Oh you seem pretty stuck on yourself. Why don't you make your self a drink and I will be out within three shakes of a lambs tail!

SW: (SW talking from the bedroom) So how do you know my step mother?

VV: Oh I know her through one of my business partners...just a lil business.

(SW exits the room and joins VV. She takes out the CD that VV was playing and pulls out a camcorder)

SW: (Pointing the camera at VV) Smile you are on camera!

VV: Are you ready to go?

SW: Yes but not before an interview. First question, birds or squirrels?

VV: Birds all the way, no comparison.

SW: I prefer birds myself, I talk to them.

VV: You talk to birds?

SW: Yes, it's just one bird that I'm very close to.

VV: It talks back?

SW: Yep!

VV: And you understand what it says?

SW: Yeah, is that a problem?

VV: Did you have a drink before I got here?

SW: (Smiling) I had a little of everything. (Turns the camera to herself) Well it looks like the question were turned around on me and with that being said Cut. Print. Lets go eat!

(SW turns the camera off and they both exit the front door)

Harry Pulp Potter Fiction

2010-11-19T11:51:00.001-08:00

Scene: Harry and Hermione join Vincent, Jules, and Marvin in the car.

Vincent: In Paris, you can buy beer at MacDonald’s. Also, you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?

Hermione: ohhh, oohh (raising hand)

Jules: Shut up harry mined girl, he’s asking me!

Hermione: But I’ve read about this. Standard book of Paris, Chapter 7. I checked it out weeks ago for a bit of light reading.

Jules: They don’t call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?

Hermione: No you idiot, it’s the metric system over there.

Vincent: Stop it Harry-Mined girl and Jules! It’s called A Royale with Cheese.

Harry Potter: I’m royal!!!!!

Jules: Man shut the f up!

Vincent: Marvin what you make of all of this? (Holding gun at Marvin)

Hermione: No, stop stop stop! You're going to take someone's eye out!

BOOM!!!! (Vincent shoots Marvin)

Vincent: Oh Man, I shot Marvin in the face. Guess we’ll have to call him Nearly Headless Marvin.

Jules: Look at this f’n mess man, were on a city street in broad daylight.

Hermione: Well our whole car is red; this must mean we have forgotten something.

Jules: Yea we forgot to through you out girl!

Vincent: Jules shut the f up so the wizard girl can help help us!!!

Harry Potter: I’m a Wizard!!!!!

Vincent: Hermione! Take us to a friendly place, that’s all!

Hermione: O yes okay. I’ve read about friendly places and friendly people!! (Says spell) Winston Wolfiosa

Winston Wolf magically appears

Wolf: I’m Winston Wolf, I solve problems.

Harry Potter: I’m a royal wizard!!!

Jules: How that f did you do that harry-mined girl?

Hermione: Well did you ever make anything happen? Anything you couldn’t explain?

Jules: Yea I should be f’n dead. Divine Intervention! God came down from heaven and stopped some mother f’n bullets. It was a miracle!

Hermione: Oh yes, I remember reading about Divine Intervention.

Harry Potter: I’m divine!

2010-11-19T11:27:00.000-08:00

Matresxsx.
Phone scene:

Dr. Sun glare: Have you paid the bill yet.

Agent 303: uh, of course I did. I had to remove some features like our navigation and upgraded to unlimited testing since you are always going over your texting. I also had to add minutes to our talking plan you seem to always go over your transports. Ever since you found the little white rabbit, Alice has you whooped.

Dr; SG: well, its not you business, but if you must know you might as well put her in our Fab 5.

Agent 303: WTF! You must be joking. Alice is a bitch! You Murphy hit that al ready?

Dr. SG: Who!

Agent: Murphy.

Dr. SG: you serious! I heard stories about him and how he is great with at everything he does, including woman. What would Alice want with me?

Agent 303: aren’t you the one that’s supposed to be like the number 3 or 4 in line to be the chosen one.

Dr. SG: yeah but, she is not like that. She is not superficial. She has feeling and is way deeper than to be with me for my position.

Agent 303: Dude, she has been with a lot of agents. She has even been with that one dude, from the cleaning crew.

Dr. SG: are you sure? He doesn’t even have any teeth. What could she possibly have wanted with him?

Agent 303: That’s why, because he has not teeth he was able to get all up…..

Dr. SG: okay, okay! I get it she is a good hygienist. But why would she be playing. Me?

Agent 303: look, I will talk to her and see what she wants, (déjà vu) what she wants, (déjà vu) what she wants, (déjà vu)….

Dr. SG: Shit it happened again. (phone ringing)

Murphyous: Shit, Alice is coming.

How my phone is not working. I can hear your and answer the phone but it’s not working.

Murphyous: what time is it?

Dr. SG; I dnot know, its like 7:30pm, why?

Murphyous: Dude, we are in West cost and you are in the East cost.

Dr. SG: And?

Murphyous: our night and weekend doesn’t start until another 3 hours

star wars

2010-11-19T11:23:00.000-08:00

Star Wars meets Amadeus

2010-11-19T11:21:00.000-08:00

I think this is highly entertaining because Salieri is going to Mozart to see if he will compose him a Requiem Death Mass. But on the contrary, Salieri poses as the bad guy because Mozart composes his own death mass. I just thought it fit really well with this scene.

'Precious' Trailer HD

2010-11-19T10:25:00.000-08:00

fight club best fight scene

2010-11-19T10:24:00.000-08:00

Singin' in the Pulp

2010-11-19T10:20:00.001-08:00

It is a little crass to parody such a classic like Singin' in the Rain, but I couldn't pass up the chance to switch the characters of Vincent and Jules from Pulp Fiction, with Cosmo and Don.

Cosmo: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... stop right there. Eatin' a bitch out, and givin' a bitch a foot massage ain't even the same fuckin' thing.

Don: It's not. It's the same ballpark.

Cosmo: Ain't no fuckin' ballpark neither. Now look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but, you know, touchin' his wife's feet, and stickin' your tongue in her Holiest of Holies, ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport. Look, foot massages don't mean shit.

Don: Have you ever given a foot massage?

Cosmo: [scoffs] Don't be tellin' me about foot massages. I'm the foot fuckin' master.

Don: Given a lot of 'em?

Cosmo: Shit yeah. I got my technique down and everything, I don't be ticklin' or nothin'.

Don: Would you give a guy a foot massage?

[Cosmo gives Don a long look, realizing he's been set up]

Cosmo: Fuck you.

Don: You give them a lot?

Cosmo: Fuck you.

Don:You know, I'm getting kinda tired. I could use a foot massage myself

Cosmo:Man, you best back off, I'm gittin' a little pissed here.

Precious/Fight Club/Potter

2010-11-19T10:20:00.000-08:00

Precious/ Fight Club/ Potter

I picture this scene with Precious and Monique circling each other as in the beginning of this link and then Precious is about to whoop Monique’s butt. When Monique goes to hit Precious in the head with the caste-iron skillet and Precious ducks, she puts on her invisible cloak, turns into Norton’s weird subconscious from the scene where he’s in his boss’ office beating himself up. The beating Norton goes through seemingly by himself to himself, is actually Precious with the invisible cloak tearing into her mother. She gets to throw Mo’Nique’s big behind into the glass and beats her to the point where she crawls to Precious’ feet (because she can see them) and spits blood onto her shoes. She cries, “Why would you do that? Please, Oh God, please stop! No! No!” After the beatdown, Norton (Mo’Nique) strolls through the welfare office as an employee as her fate.

2010-11-19T10:06:00.000-08:00

Which is more menacing, the plane out to destroy Mr. Thornhill or the crazy people wearing rain slicks in the middle of a dust blown field singing about rain chasing him? Or is it that the rain slickers are Thornhill's allies? Whatever it is, I would watch it.

The Blue Pill

2010-11-19T08:50:00.000-08:00

Neo is faced with the ultimate life changing decision-- should he take the red pill or the blue pill? Terrified by the thought of life changing from his normal, boring, everyday routine ...he choses the blue pill. Shocked and slightly insulted, Morpheus takes Neo's head and slams it into the mirror.

Neo wakes up (his head slightly hurting) thinking he had a bizzare and creepy nightmare. Should he have taken the other pill? He then gets a phone call telling him he is late paying his rent and would have to move out within the next week. As if this wasn't bad enough, his girlfriend of five years calls and informs Neo that she has been having an affair with his father. They are moving to South Dakota together and will never see him again. Neo then catches a cab to go to work- HOWEVER-- this is not an ordinary cab driver. Instead, Neo is taken to five points- where the cab driver punches him in his head, takes his wallet, and drops him off. Then comes a mob of hustlers yelling at Neo to get out of their neighborhood and knock him out again.

Neo wakes up, on the street, without clothes...Neo really regrets taking the blue pill. Morpheus drives by in his stretch hummer limo, rolls down the window, laughs and says "should have taken the red pill"

THE END :)

What Salieri Really Wanted to do to Mozart

2010-11-18T23:58:00.000-08:00

We all know this famous scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, and it made me think that if Salieri was Indiana Jones, and Mozart was the sword guy, we all know how this scene ends, and I have a feeling this is what Salieri would have wanted to do to Mozart!

Sorry for my terrible picture editing!

Just in case you forgot the ending of this scene:

Kevin Daniel

THE ONE

2010-11-18T21:57:00.000-08:00

Coming soon to a theater near you...

Neo Amadeus Anderson Mozart had been studying the art of music since he was just a lad. Taught by his father everyday, he excelled in his craft tremendously. He would grow to become the most amazing composer to have ever lived. But little did he know, there was a man who had a deep hatred for Neo Amadeus Anderson Mozart, and he would stop at nothing to bring Neo Amadeus Anderson Mozart down. Neo Amadeus Anderson Mozart will have to learn how to compose like he's never composed before. He must...free his composition. He will have to overcome many hardships,he will discover love, and make a decision that could change the fate of the world. Forever.

This summer, Keanu Reeves is...

Amadeus: A New Hope!

2010-11-18T21:54:00.001-08:00

Oh yea, i'd watch it...

Parody, Redux, and Mashup

2010-11-18T21:00:00.000-08:00

Here are a bunch of parodies of some of the films we've seen so far. How many of yours are better-done? :) ~Prof. Jenn

Matrix and the City: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZbHicx0bSY&feature=related
The Simpsons' Homage to NXNW: http://smotri.com/video/view/?id=v10552773c9e
Star Wars Uncut (won an Emmy for Web-interactive): http://www.starwarsuncut.com/watch
Family Guy's Blue Harvest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TNN9xV2MkI
Ferris Club: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiMuj85ngEo
SNL Harry Potter: http://www.collegeslackers.com/video/snl:_harry_potter
Molly Ringwraith's Print Parodies: (Half-Blood Prince): http://mollyringwraith.livejournal.com/43789.html

...and here's just one of many original James Bond scenes that Austin Powers makes fun of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TmeBd9338

Amadeus plays hyperthrust

2010-11-18T20:57:00.000-08:00

Amadeus parody by corybrownbrowncory

The Lord of the Matrix

2010-11-18T19:39:00.001-08:00

I've been wanting to do a parody combining The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix. Thus, here is a taste:

Frodo is sitting under a tree in the Shire, reading a book, when he sees a white rabbit hop by. He follows it to Bilbo's birthday party, where hobbits are dancing to Rob Zombie. There, he is approached by Arwen.

Arwen: Hello, Frodo.
Frodo: How do you know my name?
Arwen: I know a lot about you.
Frodo: Who are you?
Arwen: My name is Arwen.
Frodo: The Arwen? Wow, I just thought... you were a guy.
Arwen: Most guys do. Come with me. There's something important I need to show you.

She takes him to Bag End, where he meets...

Frodo: Gandalf...
Gandalf: Yes. I've been looking for you, Frodo, for a very long time. Let me tell you why you're
here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there... like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has
brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?
Frodo: The Matrix?
Gandalf: Do you want to know what it is?
Frodo: Yes.
Gandalf: The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth.
Frodo: What truth?
Gandalf: That you are a slave, Frodo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison created by the dark lord Sauron. A prison... for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is... you have to see it for yourself.

Gandalf holds up the One Ring.

Gandalf: The is the One Ring, the source of Sauron's power. It must be destroyed in order to free Middle-Earth from the grip of the Matrix. And you, Frodo... you are the One. The One who must destroy the ring.
Frodo: But how?
Gandalf: It must be cast into the fires of Mount Doom.
Frodo: How am I supposed to do that?
Gandalf: It will not be easy. Mount Doom lies deep within Mordor, a land crawling with orcs. And even now, Sauron has sent his ringwraiths out to locate the ring. But you have an advantage, Frodo. Everything about them, their strength and speed, is still based on a world built on rules. And because of that, they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be.
Frodo: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge arrows?
Gandalf: No, Frodo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.
Frodo: So I'm going to gain some sort of mystical arrow-stopping powers?
Gandalf: No, the orcs are just really bad shots. Seriously, they couldn't hit the broad side of a cave troll.

Epic Failure- Mash up

2010-11-18T17:43:00.001-08:00

So, after having many technical difficulties trying to make a mash-up of snow white and audio from pulp fiction I have given up. So instead, I’ll describe my mash-up to you. It involved that last scene of snow white in her glass casket when prince charming comes up and brings her back to life. I put the music from the scene with Mia where she’s dancing to “girl you’ll be a woman, soon.” It actually had a cool effect to it. It looked like prince charming was singing the song (because he actually sings in that scene) while slowly walking up to the casket. I just thought it was interesting to have such a distinctive song being played from pulp fiction with a happy go lucky Disney movie. It gave new meaning to the snow white scene because the phrase “girl, you’ll be a woman soon” plays really well into the whole scenario of prince charming sweeping her up to go live in his castle. Then after the couple gazes off at the castle and the scene ends I was going to put this little extra under the video:

“Shortly after Snow White and Prince Charming reached the Castle, Snow White find some heroin in Prince Charming’s cloak and decided to get a little crazy. While Prince charming was asking the mirror: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most charming of them all,” Snow White was all cracked out on prince charming’s throne. The prince came out, ready to make snow white a woman, but found her in this condition.

After freaking out about how much heroin she had taken, the prince jumped on his horse and rushed her over to his drug dealer, known to everyone as grumpy. Grumpy said he “didn’t want any b*tches ODing at his house,” but it was too late for that. The prince drug snow white, all foamy mouthed with a nose bleed into Grumpy’s living room. Grumpy searched frantically for an adrenaline shot while his life partner dock wouldn’t stop screaming profanities at him.

After finding the shot, Prince charming stabbed Snow White right in her heart, and she woke up immediately. After leaving Grumpy’s house, Prince Charming decided to call off the wedding, and dropped her off at the old house she’d been squatting at recently.

The End”

Creative Blog= Mash Up

2010-11-17T13:41:00.000-08:00

Mash up of Snow White and the Seven Drawfs and Fight Club.

Prince Charming- Marla's Character (love interest)

Tyler/?- Snow White

Dwarfs- Durden's Men

Snow White: (Surrounded by her trusty forest animals) Hi Ho Hi Ho, Welcome to the forest!

(Dwarfs start appearing from behind trees and bushes dressed in all black)

Snow White: Now, before we enter, (she points to the cave up ahead). The first rule of Gold Mining Club is: you do not talk about Gold Mining Club. The second rule of the club is: you DO NOT talk about Gold Mining Club! Third rule of the club: if someone yells "Woah!", Stikes a big one, then passes out from excitement, you rush over as fast as possible and steal all of their diamonds. Fourth rule: Hitting allowed with shovels, but no axes. Fifth rule: Every dwarf for themselves. Sixth rule: After work, you wash up immediatley while singing silly songs. Seventh rule: this will go on as long as it takes to get clean... or NO dinner. And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at the Club, you have to find me a huge diamond, OR ELSE the chipmunks will take care of you.

Grumpy, Sneezy you first.

Grumpy: (Angrily picks up shovel and starts heading towards the cave) Under his breathe- All females is poison!

Sneezy: (Wrinkling his nose, to stop a sneeze, he grabs his shovel and knocks Grumpy on the floor, so he can be the first in the cave) Diamond, Diamond in the walls, oh please tell me where you are? (Silence)

Doc: Don't be stupid, walls can't talk anymore than mirrors can!

Both are pounding at the walls like crazy. They hit eachother more than anything, and are making zero progress. Snow White is getting frustrated no one has brought her a jewel yet, and she starts threatening the two with soap. They work a little faster and finally, Sneezy comes out with a broken nose, a sprained ankle and a diamond the size of a big, juicy apple.

-Later back at the cottage: (After dinner, they are all sitting around the bathtub full of soap n suds)

Snow White: (Muttering to herself) Now if only I had a man that would give me a ring for this amazing diamond. (all the dwarfs around her repeat, and she looks around confused).

(Knock at the door, the squirrels run to the door to see who is it)

Prince Charming: I am Snow's long lost Prince Charming.

Ideology Prezi

2010-11-12T18:08:00.000-08:00

Ideology & Pulp Fiction on Prezi

Broken Links: Ideology/Pulp Fiction

2010-11-12T18:07:00.000-08:00

Here are the broken links from the Ideology prezi:

Ezekiel 25:17 the first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czb4jn5y94g
Disney voiced of the above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBfmjromhhk

Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face.

2010-11-12T11:54:00.001-08:00

Its been a while since I last watched Pulp Fiction. I never really liked it before. It was better this time, but it still is not my favorite movie. I just don't like Tarantino, don't know why. Either way I can see the ideological values implicit in it. That said I would say it falls in the implicit ideology category from the reading. The chapter says "We must infer what the characters stand for as their tale unfolds. Nobody spells out the moral of the story" I have no idea what any of the characters stand for cause no one ever directly tells me what they think, except about mundane things.

In fact all the characters seem to change between the time we first meet them to the time they leave. For instance, Mr. Wallace is obviously the bad guy (well, kind of) but by the time we're done with his story he's being raped and you almost start to pull for him. Jules and Vincent are Mr. Wallace's thugs, so they have to be bad. Yet by the end they're effectively saving a diner full of people. Maybe thats why I never really liked Pulp Fiction, its kind of ambiguous in its ideology.

Pulp Fiction/Ideology/Critique

2010-11-12T11:40:00.000-08:00

The idealogy of something is what we're supposed to get from it, the meaning behind the actions or words. Pulp Fiction is a fascinating movie, quite humorous, and has loads of lessons and morals learned and taught behind the scenes. Quentin Tarantino does a good job in displaying his lessons waiting to be taught in visually stimulating ways. He doesn't quite care about the language used to convey the point nor if the material is offensive to anyone. He'll inject any "sensitive" topic into his films. Although, he's not a great actor, his style in directing movies is a sight to behold and let develop as you watch. I never really thought about the moral of the story behind Pulp Fiction before, for this wasn't my first time watching it. I had to research the meaning behind the movie to get an okay understanding and to see if I agreed with it or finally "got it". I guess you could say that the moral behind it all was about honor, loyalty, and logic (good common sense). The characters stood for those notions in our minds concerning good, bad, right, and wrong. What you inevitably will do may not always be right, but in the end hope it's honorable. That's what I got from this. Also, searching for what you may think you want may not always lead to what you expected it to be. Finally getting the watch back after going through the mess and then realizing the watch hadn't been valued as though it should have is disappointing to me.

Pulp Fiction

2010-11-12T11:33:00.000-08:00

Pulp Fiction is for sure a cult classic. I forgot how well-made it was until we watched it in class! The story, the cast, the editing were all amazing. I loved the plot and how it was put together.

The movie contained a lot of underlying topics, which led me to characterize it as implicit. What really stood out to me was the "miracle" Jules ranted about at the beginning of the movie and what happened after that (robbery at the restaurant after the incident in the car).

Pulp Fiction/Ideaology

2010-11-12T11:10:00.000-08:00

Quentin Tarantino is by far my favorite director ever. And although many would argue that his best film is Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction will always be my favorite. His style of directing is always explicit I would have to say. You never really know completely what's going on or have any sort of inkling of what will happen in the end and you really have to pay special attention to the characters and judge for yourself what kind of people they are. He has no issue with hitting sensitive subjects like drugs, violence, murder, sex and so forth and his movies, in a way, always take a stand and leave the audience thinking.

The tone of Tarantino's movies are always a little dark, but pretty comical at the same time. It takes a certain type of person to really understand while enjoying his movies. I for one can't get enough. And my personal favorite thing about most of his movies is that he'll play a small part which non-Tarantino fans would never notice. He played the part of Jimmie perfectly, and it would be hard to guess what a man really lies behind that front. I am very happy this movie was shown in class, bravo!

Pulp Fiction

2010-11-12T11:03:00.000-08:00

First let me start off by saying that I love love love this movie! I remember trying to watch it when I was younger and trying so hard to like it because everyone raved about it so much, but I secretly found it extremely hard to follow and even a little disturbing. Now that I am at an appropriate age for such a movie, I found it very easy to follow and super entertaining. I tend to be a fan of most (if not all) of Tarantino's films, but I especially like this one because it doesn't have over-the-top gratuitous violence and the way the story twists around and keeps you on the edge of your seat makes it thoroughly enjoyable. I definitely still enjoyed all of the typical Tarantino signatures throughout the movie though.

After doing the reading, I believe that this film would be in the implicit category. This is because throughout the movie, it is hard to keep track of who is the bad guy and who is the good guy (if there even is one at all!) because this aspect of the characters is "not dwelled on." I also think that it fits into this category because I definitely feel like "nobody spells out 'the moral of the story' for you" For instance, during the whole part between Butch and Marsellus Wallace, you definitely lose track of who to "root" for. Once they are both held captive and Marsellus is being raped, you actually end up feeling sorry for the guy who had most of the people killed in the movie. I really like this about Pulp Fiction because even though it's such a long movie, it keeps you on an emotional roller coaster the whole time instead of just influencing you to feel one way.

Pulp Fiction

2010-11-12T10:45:00.000-08:00

I have seen Quentin Tarantino films before but I had never seen this one. Pulp Fiction was very weird and violent, but funny and brilliant at the same times. Samuel L. Jackson played a philosophical killer, which I thought was very strange. I mean it was almost funny to have him quote Ezekiel before he would kill someone or believe that not getting shot was a true miracle. I normally do not like Uma Thurman movies, but i felt that her character in this movie was alright, considering I didn't get annoyed with her acting. She portrayed a gangster's girlfriend very well. As for Bruce Willis and John Travolta, they did a great job!

Some scenes of the movie were stupid though. One good example was when Ringo had to come in to tell them what to do. I didn't fully understand the awkwardness of some guy having to come in to tell them how to clean a car? The flashbacks made the movie even more interesting and made you think more. The movie had great music to go along with the scenes and all the weird shots and plots made it great. All I thought of when the guy was killed in the backseat of the car, and they were just like oops i didn't mean to do that!?

In the reading it seems like the movie fell into the right models. The characters acting showed more of a rightist emphasize with power and authority, as well as judging human behavior, and an overall pessimistic view. Sexual freedom is defiantly not leftist view in this movie, considering the guy is gave "Mia a foot rub" was through off the balcony, even though Mia said this wasn't true.

Overall the movie left me a little upset because we never got to see what was glowing inside the suitcase. They never showed them actually delivering to the suitcase to anyone either. This suitcase was what made all the killings and everything happen, but we never got to see whats inside!

2010-11-12T10:30:00.001-08:00

Pulp Fiction/Ideology
Pulp Fiction is an explicit film in the truest sense of the word. The gratuitous violence, swearing and overall gangster content send this movie over the edge of explicit content. One thing I really love inn this film is the sort of disconnected viewpoint from which we witness all of the movies action. It makes me as a viewer feel pretty odd and like im intruding on something im not supposed to see.

Pulp Fiction

2010-11-12T09:38:00.001-08:00

First, I had never seen the movie and I am not sure if I liked it or not. In the beginning, it kind of jumped around but at least I understood what was going on. Psychological films are definitely in Quentin Tarantino neck of the woods. This film did keep me on the edge of my seat wondering what actions were going to come next. John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson is a good choice for the film. They are so different and have played many different characters in many different movies, but I think that the bond between the actors is played very well in this movie because they each bring something different to the table.

After reading I have came to the conclusion that Pulp Fiction was a good representation of ideology. For the fact, that ideology is caused by our “attitudes towards sex, work, power sharing, authority, the fact or not.” It really has a lot of those characteristics. Think of it this way, the main characters (Travolta and Jackson) seem to always be fulfilling a job but since their main way of fulfillment is their use of weapons then it kind of portrays them as the authority to the peons in the movie. This movie is also based on the supremacy of social culture. Seriously, it is a great example of how we the audience might think a gang or big boss situation might take place. Of course, there is a Boss of which he has men that do all of his dirty work and then there are the peons that have to deal with the boss’s men. Well in all cases, you would expect there to be violence and uncanny use of weapons and I think Tarantino totally fulfilled that audience in the social expectations that the viewers expect to see. Overall, I have mixed feeling about the movie but I wouldn’t mind seeing it again so I can catch up on all of the details that I missed the first time.

Pulp Fiction+Ideology

2010-11-12T09:38:00.000-08:00

I love Pulp Fiction, and almost all of Tarantino's movies. However, there is something about this one; how all the characters are intertwined and how they are all so unique and creative that makes this one my favorite. It is a very artistic and sometimes disgusting movie at the same time. haha The text says "...every film has a slant, a given ideological perspective that privileges certain characters, institutions, behaviors, and motives as attractive, and downgrades an opposing set as repellent." I could not think of a better film to describe this quote then Pulp Fiction.

I would call Pulp Fiction implicit in its ideological perspective because the characters all have their own values and morals but they are not shoved in our face. Each has a different way of expressing their feelings and I feel it is done in a creative and interesting way. The themes are all slanted toward the same direction, which is another characteristic in the category implicit.

"Analyzing a characters ideological values is often a difficult task because many characters are a fusion of contradictory sentiments..." This quote matches Jules characters well because he is a hit man, yet he also quotes the bible every time before he shoots someone. To me these are contradictory actions. Also, the robbers in the diner are contradictions. They tell each other they never will shoot anyone, then they jump on the table threatening this exact thing. Obviously, its a scare tactic, but when I was younger watching the movie this confused me. I didn't understand their negative actions vs. their values.

I could not decide where Pulp Fiction falls on the left-center-right model... any ideas?

Feminism did not play a part in this film. Even though Mia was an independent woman, she still did not have any extreme feminist qualities.

The tone of this movie was interesting. Sometimes funny, sometimes dark. The actions on the screen do effect our emotions for sure though. Waiting for the needle to go through Mia's chest or the Zed scene definetly have an impact on the viewer. I think every scene with Vega and Jules was hilarious! They were so funny together and the writing made it even better.

Pulp Fiction

2010-11-12T09:13:00.000-08:00

Quentin Tarantino is known for his distinct form of movies, how they are filmed and how they are written. When watching Pulp Fiction for the first time I noticed how much the film looked like kill bill and other Quentin Tarantino films. This leads me to believe that what makes a Tarantino film is something along the lines of the fact that it adapts to his style and becomes unique.

When Watching Kill Bill another well know Tarantino film it is obvious how the style of the film is similar to that of Pulp Fiction. Both movies are filmed rather the same and have the same sort of camera angles and tools used to build the characters. One of the thing i notice most is the fact that the script styles in both films are very similar. They are both very awkward scripts with strange pauses and weird times. It seems like both scrips are written so that the actor can talk slow to help build suspense in a very strange but creative Tarantino way.

Getting tot eh ideology aspect of the film it seems that Tarantino has a very consistent way of bringing up his characters and developing them in his movies. In Pulp Fiction the development of Samual L. Jacksons character a hit man who is using a religious phrase before he kills people because it "sounds cool" changes after having a epiphany. He later uses the same religious phrase in the movie and states "I have been saying that for years and did not know what it meant" But discuses how they day has changed him and he has been analyzing the phrase. This shows to develop his character through a form of religion and changes his character throughout the movie.

After watching Pulp Fiction it interesting to see how well the characters in the films come about to be developed. It is a unique style that only one man could do through interesting script writing and camera angles that capture them in a unique way.

Pulp Fiction

2010-11-12T09:12:00.000-08:00

Before class I had never before seen a Quentin Tarantino film, I know... I've been deprived. I dont know if it was just me but I found Pulp Fiction to be super artistic, I even thought this would have been a good film to be used corresponding to the photography chapter, but I found it useful when reading about Ideology as well.

Like some of my classmates I found the section about how filmmakers create charectors in an implicit film really intersting when connecting it with the movie Pulp Fiction. One of the main charectors in the movie, Jules; played by Samuel Jackson, plays a man who pretty much kills people for a living. If you just heard that last sentence and nothing else you would assume he is a "bad charector" in the film, yet the way the director goes about portaying him, through how he talks, walks, interacts with other people and jokes around a lot... His career, throughout the film, gets less and less weighted and the audience grows fond of him and almost "looks up" to him in a way.

Something else I found super intersting in the reading was when it started to explain how the Womans Liberation Movement, The Black Liberation Movement and the Gay Liberation Movement had a strong impact on Cinema. Its crazy to think that until lately it was perfectly acceptable to make an openly racist, sexist or homophobic film.

Quentin Tarantino truely creates his own unique tone in this movie. Though strange and almost abstract I really enjoyed it and I'll have go rent some of his other films.

pulp fiction

2010-11-12T07:11:00.000-08:00

Taratino is know for making sort of strange movies, in that they are somewhat unusual. His movies are pretty decent though in terms of directing, art, action and they have a specific feel to them. He is considered the best director of the 90's and one of the best directors ever.

Bruce willis was a good a good asset to the cast and his character was interesting in the sense that he starts out being violent but later we discover that he also has an affectionate part that he shares with his girlfriend.

the dialogue is witty and entertaining and it created characters that seem like regular people and later the story tells us who they really are.The movie is nicely stylized and it creates tension and curiosity for the viewers to wonder, which is what Taratino intended to do. The lines are full of inteligence and witt as the director uses them to unfold and tell the story and reveal the characters in a more profound and interesting way. No line is wasted in this movie,it has been very carefully planned and that is why is one of the best movies ever made.

"Five long years he wore this watch, up his ass"

2010-11-12T07:05:00.000-08:00

Ideology and art go hand in hand. According to our book, “since the ancient times, critics have discussed art as having a double function: to teach and provide pleasure.” Of course this idea isn’t true with every piece of art, but it is prevalent in most cases. For any film to be generalized as “good,” it needs to have some sort of moral or back-story because audiences want to see something they can understand and relate to, whether it is some sort of story on class struggle or racial boundaries.

Pulp Fiction would not have come to mind to define the chapter on Ideology, but after reading the chapter and seeing the film, it fits. The ideology explicitness in my mind would be rated as Implicit. Although there isn’t a defined protagonist or antagonist, there is conflicting values, racial struggles, and opposed views on the world. Quentin Tarantino uses these to create a twisted plot line, which ties together in the end resulting in each of the characters having a different view than when the film started. Of the four stories, my favorite was The Gold Watch, not only because it has Christopher Walken in it, but because of the ending scene where Marsellus Wallace and Butch Coolidge have a resolution towards each other, even under the brutal circumstances. This scene plays into a warped version of Cooperation versus Competition. In the book, it gives examples about government, but it can be construed to fit the scene with Butch and Marsellus. They become fierce competition, Marsellus after Butch’s life, after Butch double crosses Marsellus. Bruce Willis is driven by insanity when his watch is left behind. He leaves to get his watch, building the stage for the shift in character. Through a series of odd and misfortunate scenes, he ends up equal to Marsellus, and their competition is forced to a stop by means outside of their own. From here the roles switch, there is no competition, only cooperation because our antagonist has switched, and the two characters we know are now in danger, thus creating a sense of sympathy. I’d like to think that the Ideology shown in this scene is change, because if two mortal enemies can “be cool” over a change in power, then it should represent what it shows.

Quentin Tarantino also touches on the idea of Religion versus Secular. “Ezekiel 25:17…And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.” This is part of quote that Jules gives before killing some unfortunate person. This quote doesn’t mean much in the way of religion until the ending scene when Jules finds himself alive after being shot at by “the hand cannon.” He believes that divine intervention and act of God stepped down to save his and Vincent’s lives. When Jules is talking to Vincent about this miracle, this wondrous interference, Vincent is skeptical and even shoots down (no pun intended) the idea that Jules has about quitting. Vincent would appear to be a leftist, and Jules a reborn rightist. There are themes like this throughout the movie, but none quite as strong as the debate between Vincent and Jules.

“Just because you are a character, doesn’t mean you have character.” Is the incredibly appropriate tagline for Pulp Fiction. Each of the characters in this film has some sort of lesson to teach, even if it is violent and unorthodox. The difference between right and wrong is blurred in this movie, and as Tarantino plays up what he is famous for, creating violent protagonists that somehow you feel a connection to.

Pulp Fiction

2010-11-12T02:20:00.000-08:00

The thing that stands out most to me in Pulp Fiction (and other Taratino films) is the tone. Though it's an exceptionally violent and dramatic film, it wouldn't be at all what it is without the somewhat comical and fun tone. There's definitely more than one tone throughout the whole movie, but they go together very well. For instance the beginning scene where Vincent and Jules are in the apartment with the younger kids. It's a bit of a suspenseful part because you don't really know what's going on or very much about the characters. But the bit of suspense is accompanied by the kind kind of witty and stylized dialogue between Jules and Vincent.

Pulp fiction is a good example of a movie where you know that in many cases, the protagonist/ main characters would be "bad guys," though you still get somewhat attached to the characters and are drawn to them. I feel like it actually makes identifying the ideology in general kind of difficult. for instance when Jules thinks that they witnessed a miracle when they didn't get shot. It adds a new religious characteristic to jules' character that wasn't very apparent before.

Pulp Fiction

2010-11-12T01:29:00.000-08:00

One thing that stood out to me in the reading in relation to Pulp Fiction was the idea of what makes likeable, sympathetic characters. It was pointed out that characters who are funny are likeable. I think that plays a huge part in Pulp Fiction. Despite the fact that the main characters are a couple of hitmen, we look beyond the violence and see them as likeable, regular guys because of all the humor. I think Quentin Tarantino uses this well, shaping the audience's view of the characters.

I also see a prominent expression of two different ideologies in Jules's and Vincent's takes on the "miracle" of them not getting hit by any of the bullets the guy shot at them. Jules is so affected by this experience and convinced that it was an act of God that he calls it quits. Vincent, meanwhile, tries to explain it away as pure luck and thinks that Jules is attributing way too much significance to it. It shows how two different people can experience the same thing and have two very different reactions to it.

Along with religious vs. secular ideologies, we see cooperation triumph over competition when Butch and Marsellus go from being enemies trying to kill each other to working toward the common goal of escaping from Zed and his accomplice. Even though Butch has a chance to flee on his own, he decides to go back and save Marsellus, and as a result Marsellus excuses him from upsetting his fixed fight and agrees to let him go in peace.

Overall, I think this movie puts a spin on behavior and activities that we would normally consider "bad" or "wrong." It doesn't glamorize them--we see the consequences of a drug overdose, the seriousness and tenseness of a robbery, and how characters are affected by brushes with death. But we also see how normal these characters can be, not made out to be stereotypical evil villains. It humanizes them and makes them relatable.

Pulp Ideology

2010-11-11T23:35:00.000-08:00

Really as I got older, and more involved in watching movies and learning about things behind the scenes of the movie, that is really when I started to learn about ideology in cinema. Filmmakers perspectives always get shown through in their films. If you have watched any news or heard about anything from Hollywood, you know that a big majority of people in Hollywood are very liberal. I have noticed it more in new movies, that political views are leaking onto the pages or the writers and are being spread to the people. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I am not quite sure. I think it can be both good and bad, but can the message overtake the movie? I think in some respect, yes it really can.

I am going to go on a limb and call out Avatar. Considered a really great movie and an amazing achievement, there are so many ideological aspects of this movie that can almost take away from the movie. There are a ton of political undertones. Big corporations are bad, don't destroy the planet, military men are brainless and soulless...etc. I have seen this movie a couple times, and really after the first time, it was really hard for me to not see how much James Cameron depicted his political views into his script. Other examples that have that underlying ideology are The Other Guys, in which the entire movie has the hatred of big corporations and then during the credits, those views take over the screen and then the movies ideology is painted on the screen.

Pulp Fiction is a cult classic. I haven't seen it as much as others in the class, but Tarantino is a name that frequently comes up in my collection. Tarantino has a way of bending the rules. He really does it all. I would say a big thing he does in most of his movies are racial in nature. He always has a cliche in his movies. From Dusk 'Til Dawn, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds really all have a cliche character that fits some sort of mold of racism in nature. Whether it be Samuel L. Jackson as the cliche African American man, or Brad Pitt as a red-neck Nazi hater, he always has that character in his movies, taking American cultural stereotypes and putting them in his movies. Very edgy but very brilliantly done and written very well. I always look forward to Tarantino films, and look forward to Kill Bill, Vol. 3.

Kevin Daniel

11/5 - Pulp Fiction/Ideology

2010-11-11T23:20:00.000-08:00

You have to like this movie, "One sees such movies and what else can one think but Tarantino." But seriously it was great being able to see this one in class especially with the projector and all. I think its great that we followed Harry Potter with Pulp Fiction, they should be sold together. Probably not but anyway, I have also seen this movie many times. The dialogue is incredible not to mention how amazing the soundtrack is. Tarantino along with being a great film-maker has a great sense of how to use a song in a movie.

Pulp Fiction was a perfect movie to watch for this chapter of reading too. It was certainly a textbook example of implicit ideology. Especially in the sense that no character really spells out the moral of the story. The movie is definitely all over the place in its development of the characters. You could argue that Jules or Samuel L. Jackson's character is kind of a central character but I wouldn't say that the movie is about Jules character exclusively or any other character for that matter. I think that most of the brilliance of the film is how many characters you have going throughout the whole movie and every one of them has their own different story and crazy part in the film as a whole. I love the part of the heroin dealer sitting at home watching cartoons eating a bowl of cereal, that guy was perfect for the part. I always crack up when I think about that scene.

Anyway going back to Jules. You have this very important sort of argument between Jules and Travolta's character Vincent. It is certainly a difference in ideologies. You have Jules arguing that the bullets were stopped by divine intervention or an act of God. You have Vincent who is completely indifferent to Jules claim and thinks of it simply as luck. Here you can see a very apparent clash in the characters ideals. Another important scene which I think you could safely say is one of the weirdest, craziest scenes in any movie is the scene with Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames at the pawn shop. It is a pretty sick scene but you have to remember the part where Butch or Bruce Willis could have escaped and left Marsalis behind but you see this test of his ideals hold him back and he goes back and makes things right even though Marsalis was trying to kill him before. It does make you think along with many other parts but all ideals aside this is a great movie and I was glad we could watch it in class.

What does Marsellus look like?

2010-11-11T19:29:00.000-08:00

I can't even count how many times I have seen "Pulp Fiction", I own the movie so I watch it at my dispose. Quentin Tarantino is known for his very violent movies, where he holds nothing back when he wants to create a "bloody" scene. He often has multiple story lines going on at the same time that seem to tie in together and create a cohesive plot. Tarantino starts his movies in the middle of the movie and through the events of other people we back track on how we got there in the beginning. Pulp Fiction begins with a man and a woman in a diner, robbing the place. This scene also introduces us to the characters Vincent and Jules which we see the story line jumping back and forth between there story and others.

Ideology is sometimes identified as a body of ideas reflecting the social needs of an individual, group, class, and culture. Ideology is referenced with the bible verses Jules quotes in the movie. In "Pulp Fiction" the good/bad, negative/positive are heavily emphasized in this movie, even in the criminal characters Vincent and Jules. Jules shows a softer and religious side opposed to Vincent's Ruthless attitude. The negative/positive roles shift throughout the movie between the characters and in relation to each other. This movie definitely falls into the implicit ideology because of the conflicting values seen in the movie. Tarantino pushes the envelope in his movies and brings violence to another level. He creates this dialog between the characters that normalize their bad actions. The car scene when Vincent and Jules was talking to the guy in the back seat. like they were friends and then Vincent's gun accidently fires when they hit a bump in the road. The reaction to them blowing a mans face off could be compared to ice cream falling off of a cone making it seem normal. A very desturbing scene was when Butch and Marsellus run into the pawn shop and start fighting, they become the protagonist. The roles were changed, they became the victims. The shop owner and his collegues have a brutal rape scene with other grown men. This movie forces their ideal of morals onto the viewer.

Pulp Fiction is so loaded with ideology, it is definitly individual focus class worthy because their is so much to decipher. Great writing always makes great movies!

Week Eleven - Ideology/Pulp Fiction

2010-11-11T19:07:00.000-08:00

The meaning of ideology to me, before this section, was a person having their own ideas about "things." As defined in the book, ideology is basically a set of values and priorities. I did not realize how much went into ideology of a movie until after reading this chapter. There's a lot of different categories a movie can be put in based off of the many characteristics a movie can have.

When talking about the explicitness of Pulp Fiction I automatically think that based off of the definition, that Pulp Fiction is mostly implicit. It says in the reading that emotionally vulnerable characters appeal to our protective instincts. For example, though Sammuel L. Jackson's characters motives are bad, and though he's dealing with drugs, etc,... We're attracted to him due to the fact that he is so smart, and deep when talking about certain things. (Example, when he's talking to the man and woman who are robbing the coffee shop, and how smoothly he handles that.) "In short, ideology is another language system in film." (pg. 408) This can be in language, or in costume, or setting. All of the factors in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction makes the feeling of the movie super raw, and real too.

Speaking of the Ideology Spectrum and the chart that goes along with it, I would have to say I sort of have trouble understanding where Pulp Fiction would lie concerning political ideology? I'm going to have to say that based on the movies elements, that it's more a left sided movie based on their values. But at the same time, the movie and motives of the characters are more Hierarchial just because of the idea that "authority should be respected." Marsellas Wallace is the authority here, and a big key to this whole movie. He doesn't ask for respect, he demands it. (When he has control, of course.) I believe that Pulp Fiction is a secular movie, though there are a few times that religion is touched by Sammuel L. Jackson's character. After reading this chapter, I did not realize how much goes into ideology. There's competition versus cooperation, outsiders versus insiders, future versus past, etc etc... Culture, religion, ethnicity... You know. So with culture we see that Pulp Fiction is a whole other culture. There are easy cultural stereotypes to pick out in the film. It's really this social culture of a group who is big into drugs, trading them, gambling, all of those great things. But it's so interesting to watch and observe how seriously that lifestyle is, and has to be taken. The tone of the movie is so serious, but it's not boring by any means. I love the way Tarantino makes his movies, and this is definitely one of his best.

Pulp Fiction and Ideology

2010-11-11T16:20:00.000-08:00

Pulp fiction is a movie I’ve seen a number of times. It’s got a good story that you could follow along pretty easily, but it never really gets old for a frequent viewer. I think Pulp Fiction is a prime pick for this chapter, and includes everything you might find in an American movie. In the text I learned South Sea Islanders classified American movies into two general categories: kiss kiss and bang bang. Pulp fiction has both.

If I had to pick a category of ideological explicitness that Pulp Fiction would fall under, it would be implicit. Explicit seemed to be categorized as the strictly informal and persuasive movies that are looking to either change or confirm the values of the viewer. Pulp fiction is a movie about a group of criminals, separated by their set of goals. As far as protagonists and antagonists go, it’s quite hard to tell which is which. For example, in the opening scene we have two ‘gangsters’ who pay a visit to an apartment complex. We already have a background on these individuals and have developed feeling and opinions about them already. Then, they enter this person’s apartment and start shooting people and making orders. We have no background on these characters so it’s hard for the viewer to feel any sympathy for them. So, I would identify Jackson and Travolta as the protagonists because I see them moving towards a goal (obtaining the briefcase) and going through obstacles to get it.

The text explained that many movies fall into the category of implicit simply because we don’t have an in depth understanding of each individual character. I don’t think this movie goes in line with this generalization. The characters seem to have a lot of dialogue to build their character on. Jackson believes in a divine being while Travolta thinks otherwise. This ideal is shown in the scene when Jackson is determined to convince Travolta that a miracle happened, some sort of ‘divine intervention’ took place when a nameless character stormed out of the bathroom shooting a gun a number of times, and missing every time. We are a shown through their dialogue that Jackson is a god fearing individual, and is will be on a path of change as soon as his last assignment is completed. Travolta feels it was sheer luck and will continue with his corrupt job because he has no religious values.

I think all of Tarantino’s movies have a distinct tone to them. Pulp fiction has a raw tone to it. It shows everything you would normally see in a criminal film but on a more realistic level. For example you have the drug dealer. He always seemed to be dressed as if he just woke up in his bath robe, in a less than impressive house. Also, when Marcellus’s wife overdoses, you don’t see her gracefully pass out, you see a close up of her makeup smeared all over and she’s foaming at the mouth. Tarantino accomplishes this raw tone with the music, cuts, acting styles, and use of lighting.

-Meghan

ideology/Pulp Fiction

2010-11-11T16:10:00.000-08:00

Pulp Fiction is an interesting film because there is much contradiction as well as moral questioning which takes place. The viewer gets a taste for the style Quentin is going for when the couple in the beginning is trying to rob the diner. Even though they are performing a serious and dangerous crime, the couple is very quirky and talk to each other in a very lovey dovey way. This opening prepares the viewer for the type of action they will further view. Another scene I think is note worthy is when Vincent shoots the kid in the head when they go over a bump riding in the car. Even though it is tragic the kid just lost his life, the movie turns this almost comical. The film has a great ability to make serious events quirky or funny. Personally, I love the film...

I would say that pulp fiction includes many ideological concepts. Each character has his/her own beliefs about how the world works and how their character should deal with it. Pulp fiction is full of famous actors such as Samuel L. Jackson, John Trovolta, and Bruce Willis. I would argue that these actors typically play the same role in their movies... the bad ass, good with a gun, clever speach, and usually have alternate motives throughout the movies they play. Uma Thurman also typically plays an offbeat leading lady role such as in Kill Bill I and II. Although it may seem like these are personality stars, you could also argue that each of these characters do change considerably role to role. The ideological values in this film that are ovbious are fidelity with your spouse, killing only when the person deserves it, drugs are ok, and followoing orders from the boss. Each of the characters display these values in different ways.

Pulp fiction is great at displaying american culture. Typicially, the average american swears a lot, have jobs they are unhappy with, are jealous, and many times enjoy themselves with drugs and violence. Of course the events taking place in Pulp Fiction are dramatized events that the ordinary person wouldn't experience day to day, however, the componants listed are. Americans also disagree largely in religion and morals such as John Trovotla and Smauel L. Jackson do. Another element of american culture represented is the diversity of race we have, and how some people are tolerant of it and some not (as in the last scene with the racist pervs that have the room below the gun shop). I also like how Uma Therman's character wasn't portrayed like a slut or stupid and boring.... it was important to have the leading actress to be the complex character she was. Maybe this is to show that women of America are more interesting than media gives them credit for. The tone of Pulp fiction is a fast paced action film with much profanity and violence. The soundtrack of the film is very fast and almost comical to match that of the dialogue.

Pulp Fiction - Ideology

2010-11-10T19:18:00.000-08:00

Pulp fiction is an ideal movie for the topic of ideology. A paper on the ideology based off that movie could go on for a pretty substantial length of time covering aspects of race, religion, violence, etc., so I'll just try to pick a few to focus on.

Pulp Fiction to me seems to fall in lines with both the implicit and explicit levels of ideology. In most aspects the movie is implicit. You have to infer based on conversations and reaction from characters what their belief system is and based on that what the belief system the movie is trying to present. Explicitly though, Jules does go on several long winded religious rants, obviously portraying his personal ideological viewpoint. The fun thing about any Tarantino film is that there are many broadly developed characters in which you can infer multiple ideologies. For example you get the idea that Vincent is not a man of strong religious character based on the way in which he reacts to Jules's speeches and attempts to disregard his illustration of Divine Intervention.

This chapter discusses how the ideology of a character can win the audience over by enlisting our sympathies, for example the "underdog" always solicits the audiences sympathy. A prime example of this is Butch and his gamble of throwing a boxing match. Even during his initial scene in which it seems he's making a deal with a less than reputable character, illustrated by only showing the back of his head (very mysterious!), you already begin to feel like he's just down on his luck, stuck between a rock and a hard place so to speak. Marcellus tells him to ignore his pride and take the fall, but in Butch's face you can see he's not really interested in giving up. You know he is on the underside of a bad situation and immediately sympathize with him, even though he's obviously involved in some type of illegal action.

One particular quote from the chapter states that "Typically, many people stereotype Americans as lawless, sex-obsessed, and 'fast.'" I would not only have to agree, but am willing to point out that all three of these aspects are the driving forces of this film. The movie itself moves quickly (and effectively) through scenes and through story lines involving multiple characters as well. As far as lawless is concerned the breadth of the material is breaking the law. There's murder, drug use, theft, rape, kidnapping, black mail, and a slew of other felonies stretched throughout Pulp Fiction. Even though there are no direct sex scenes (aside from the oh so famous Deliverance scene) the movie speaks of sex, has a highly sexual undertone involving Marcellus's wife, and was even marketed sexually. Even though her role is small in the movie, the cover of the Pulp Fiction box is Uma Thurman posed seductively on a bed smoking a cigarette and giving the old "come hither" stare. Well done Quentin, you covered all the bases of stereotyped American cinema so effortlessly, and so brilliantly.

Potter, Harry

2010-11-07T20:17:00.000-08:00

I had never seen or read anything about Harry Potter until this class. The movie was visually engaging and active. It is a very dark movie, but it adds to the whole magical sense. Potter was a child that was left without his parents and was given to his aunt and uncle who treated him very bad. I was suprised to see how his life began and definitley that beginning part of the story grabs your attention if you read the book afterwards. The movie gets right to the point, but for a movie you have to because the abuse that HP was enduring could only go on for so long in a film before it turn's into another movie. In a movie they have to decide what are the most important parts in the book that will get the point across quickley. In the book the very first scene is described in detail and you can visually picture it in your head. That is one of aspects of a book that makes it good and different. In a book paitence is a verture and you need time to capture all the settings. I liked reading the book after because I was able to understand the movie more and get more of a background on the characters lives. When the book begins it starts with the birth of HP and his cousin, it compares their two lives growing up and how his cousin was sheltered and HP's being a more "liberal" family. The book also did a great job of setting up the surroundings to give you an eye into the streets, the homes, and other buildings. One thing in the book that was sucsessful in setting up the story was the magic. I really appreciate the book and movie together.

In the reading "Lost in Translation" I liked the part about "staying true" to the book and to the British people. It kept the integrity by casting people from their part of the world. What happens often in movies is it will take place in a certain part of the world and instead of hiring actors that know the place and dialect first hand, they will cast people that have to learn what some actor already knew. The reading also talked about how when people read the book and then see the movie they always want the movie to be true to the book and it's impossible. The book will alwasy be more drawn out and detailed because you have no screen in front of you.

Broken Links for Harry Potter / Writing prezi

2010-11-05T18:32:00.000-07:00

Here!
Chess scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRCgQ3yQuIg
Potions class scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNct5DEkTN0

Writing Prezi

2010-11-05T16:24:00.000-07:00

Writing on Prezi

Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone-Writing/Page to Screen

2010-11-05T11:27:00.000-07:00

I love this whole series of novels and movies. What a great storyline. I feel as though I've been a part of Harry's upbringing, or at least have been able to watch him grow into this great wizard. I've bought the books for some of my children, but never read one until this last week. What a difference! The book has so much detail and extra scenes playing in my mind and some different and extra words. Some scenes written in the book were different than how they played out in the movie. Like when Harry ended up going to the zoo with the muggle family: in the book it was Dudley and a friend plus Harry; in the movie just the two boys, Dudley and Harry. Hermione in the book seems more annoying than cute like in the movie.

When reading the book after seeing the movie, the descriptions of certain scenes, the way they are written out in the book, seems long and drawn out. But of course that's how it is in writing. The filmmaker can take those words and present a visual picture to satisfy the viewers' need for detail. The movie presented a faithful adaptation of the literary work published in the book.

I liked reading the book after seeing the movie. It was like seeing a different verison of it through my mind's eye rather than just trusting the first take. I was able to see, compare, and contrast the elements done in the book against the movie portrayal. I have quite a few of the movies, but have forgotten the order in which to watch them. When this final movie is out (both parts), I think I will take a Saturday, veg out, and enjoy the whole collection. This winter sounds like a great time to take advantage of that.

Malfoy is written just the way the actor represents him. What a great pick. I see that sometimes the books are written with actual people in mind. These actors that take on this written character show deliciously mad skill in adapting to what is described. Such talent! When I get some "free time", I'll definitely take advantage of reading the other stories.

Harry Potter

2010-11-05T11:21:00.000-07:00

I remember when the book Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone became popular. I loved it. When the movie came out, I had some pretty high expectations. I knew, of course, that they wouldn't be able to fit everything that was in the book in the movie- that would make for a ridiculously long movie. After seeing the movie for the first time, I ended up loving it, too! The author and director did a great job of collaborating to make the magic transfer gracefully from print to screen. There were many details from the book that were left out in the movie, which is to be expected. But the story was pretty much the same. Basically what the text described as a faithful adaption.

After reading the book and watching the movie for class, years later, I was able to really spot the small differences. Some characters looked different than one would have imagined them, scenes were left out or tweeked, ect. Again, that is to be expected. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was 309 pages- that's a good-sized book. If the director had used everything in the book, the movie would have been way too long! In my opinion, its like Charles Dickens novels; when you put too much detail into a movie, the audience won't be able to enjoy it as much.

Harry Potter

2010-11-05T11:20:00.000-07:00

I have to say that I love the Harry Potter movies. I love the action and the complete storyline of the movies. I liked the different world that people lived in. In the movie there is no narrator so we have to draw conclusions about the characters based on the thing they do and say, and what the other characters say about them. I admit that I watched the movie before I read the book, but while reading the book I noticed there was a lot more details.
The book of course is narrated and goes into a lot more details about the setting and what characters are thinking. I got interested in the story of the book, but at first I did not like reading it! I thought that the way it was written was very patronizing. Then I realized that it still is a children’s book. I noticed that J.K. Rowling had nothing to do with the writing of the film. I personally liked the way the movie was written because it gave the characters a lot of shape. I also thought the movie did a great job of going with the storyline of the book. It was a really good example of faithful adaption of the book.
Overall, I plan to read the rest of the books after all of the movies come out! I really liked watching the movies more than reading the books because I liked to see the games and the students performing the spells. I would recommend them both to anyone.

'arry Po'er

2010-11-05T11:13:00.000-07:00

When books turn into movies one of two things happen. Either the movie is a huge hit, everyone loves it, and only a few know that it was once a brilliant book... or it's based off a book that most people know and love and the movie just ruins the entire thing. I think the Harry Potter books and movies did a great job at balancing the two. Everyone loves the books, everyone loves the movies. But of course, the stories will change slightly when converted into movies.

When I was in the 5th grade we would dedicate an hour a day to Harry Potter. We turned the lights down low and our teacher would read to us as we all huddled on the ground and listened with intensity. I would imagine the greatest pictures of what was going on and had such a great fear of "He who must not be named". Honestly, I don't think there is a great difference between the book and the movie, for once Hollywood actually did a great job at telling (pretty much) the same story you read and see in your imagination. And have added the little Harry Potter tune that I haven't been able to get out of my head since the movie.

Of course, I could get nitty gritty about all the minor differences like how the film removes the first few chapters in the point of view of Vernon and Petunia. And how there are a few more conflicts between Harry and Draco in the book. And maybe how the sorting hat's song isn't in the movie but really, I still feel great about the book and movie and those difference don't really make a difference.

Harry Potter

2010-11-05T11:07:00.000-07:00

I have seen the Harry Potter films many times, and made fun of all of my Harry Potter fanatic friends for waiting in line to buy the next book, but I have to admit... I'm actually very grateful that I was finally forced to read the book because of this class. I've secretly wanted to read it since I saw the first movie and now I can't wait to read the rest. I need to hurry though since the first half of the final movie is about to come out!

It's hard for me to decide whether I like seeing the movie or reading the book first better. If I read the book first, I find myself hating the movie because I just sit there and pick out things that they left out, things that I found important that they just blew through in the movie, changes that they made, etc.. However, if I watch the movie first, it makes it nearly impossible for me to imagine the characters in my own way (how they look, talk, etc.) and I tend to lose interest because I already know the plot of the story. This movie-to-book experience was no different, although I really did enjoy both.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is one of the best film adaptations I have ever seen. I believe that it was cast well and it did a good job of depicting the magical, wonderful world that Rowling was trying to portray. I am mostly impressed because changing a book like this to movie form seems nearly impossible to me. The images that this book conjures up are highly personal and subjective, so it would be very difficult to come in as a third party and try to come up with universal images. Also, there are so many details that it would be extremely hard to decide what to put in and what to leave out. This is where my main frustrations came from in the film. All of the major points were hit, but little parts that I enjoyed in the book were left out. Little things like when Harry goes to the Gringott's Bank to get some money. I must say that the Quidditch match did not disappoint though. I think that if I had read the book first, the way it was done in the film is exactly how I would have imagined it. Yay special effects!! I also do believe, as I said before, that the movie was cast very well too. Although the book described Hermione as being pretty goofy looking and ugly, and Emma Watson is far from that.

All in all, I am very impressed with both the book and the movie. I do wish that I had read the book first, but because Rowling is such an incredible writer, I was still able to use my imagination quite a bit while reading. I definitely enjoyed everything about this week's work for this class :)

Harry Potter Writing and book vs movie

2010-11-05T10:25:00.000-07:00

When a movie comes out after a book it is very hard to not relate the two. I read the book when it first came out and I imagined in my mind how I thought everything looked. After watching the movie a long time ago after reading the book all I could think about was how different my vision was from the actual movie. Books let you imagine everything on your own, not having anyone tell you how it should look. After a movie comes out, it changes everything that you thought was right. I re-read the book again after watching the movie in class and all I could think of was the movie. Movies take over books! Don't get me wrong the movie does a great job of telling the story of the book, but it makes me mad knowing that what I imaged while reading is now "wrong" or different.

The movie and book had the same dialogue as well as tiny details like color of unicorn blood, Hogwart's letters, team colors...ect. However, there are a lot of differences that stood out when comparing the book to the movie. The book has characters having different hair colors and wardrobes. Ron never went to the forbidden forest in the book like he did in the movie. I imaged the chess game scene of the movie differently. Reading this part made it seem like they were the actual pieces rather than Ron sitting on top of the pieces. Although, the movie did do a great job of making this part dramatic! When Harry goes to the bank in the book it is an adventurous roller coaster ride under the city of London. The movie made this part seem dull. One last part that was changed was the ending. All the obstacles that the characters have to go through were a little different. I remember a plant trying to kill them in the book, and I don't remember the word puzzle part of the movie.

The movie left out a lot of detail and information. Obviously, this is true because they fit a novel into 2 hours. I felt like the the movie was a great movie but no movie could compare to my imagination.

Harry Potter

2010-11-05T10:07:00.000-07:00

I’m super glad we got the opportunity to see Harry Potter and reflect upon it in this class. Although there have been countless books I have read that have been turned into films whenever someone mentions script to film my first thought it always Harry Potter. Mainly, I think because of how great of a job they did, mixed with my nerdy Harry Potter obsession, of course. I found the chapter reading to be a lot less useful to me this week than usual but I really enjoyed the Ereserve article that was posted.

I consider the Harry Potter films super easy to debate about, mainly because of how many directors the series of films went through and how each of their films portray the readers fascinations quit differently. I can completely understand why Chris Columbus was nervous about drifting too far away from the books while making the first and second film in the fear of upsetting loyal fans. In my opinion, sticking so closely to the books really paid off for the series, although some may argue, I think Columbus gave fans what they wanted and allowed for the directors of the later films to experiment a bit more knowing the fans were already pleased.

The only statement in the article I disagreed with is when it opinionated that “Newell and Cuaron are the most successful in making the characters interior lives visible.” I find this statement only half true. I feel as though Newell and Yates should have been awarded for the success in which we got to know the characters similar to the way we did in the books. My personal opinion on this may be a little clouded though, seeing as that The Prisoner of Azkaban was one of my favorite books of the series, but I found the film to fall terribly flat. After seeing it with my sister, who hasn’t read any of the books, expressed that it was confusing was not properly thought out. Does anyone else feel the same?

Harry Potter

2010-11-05T09:39:00.000-07:00

I believe that the first book of the Harry Potter series is probably the one that most resembles the movie. The movie is very similar to the actual book because the author and the director had the intention of keeping the magic alive so that there could be more editions. The first movie/book is pretty much the introduction of the main characters. It is only obvious that the book is more detailed than the movie. It is no wonder that almost every child or adult has been swept up in this amazing wizarding world known as Harry Potter.

The one part that seems a little different to me is about the Troll part. It seems that Ron and Harry locked Hermione in the girls bathroom with the troll strumming around – book version. But in the movie, Hermione is in the bathroom crying because of what Ron had said about her being mental. So I guess there are subtle differences between the movie and the book. I think that the director did an amazing job bring this book to life, even though there are some subtle changes to the story to make the movie more interesting and to keep the attention of the audience. I just wish they could have kept on the same path with the rest of the movies. Overall, the first book and first movie are extremely similar in content which is extremely viable to the series as a whole.

Harry P-P-Potter

2010-11-05T09:33:00.000-07:00

When comparing Harry Potter the book to the movie it is hard to say they did a good job, but with that its hard to say they could have. Yes the storyline was correct and the movie did follow the book very well, but the movie will never be exactly like the book for many reasons. When watching the movie and comparing the book there are some things you just have to let go and not expect to be the same.

When everyone reads something they create there own visual in there head, and to compare your visual of the book to what was made into the movie of course they wont be the same because they are two different people views on what thing looked like. Another problem when trying to turn a book into a movie is cost. You have to create the sets as best you can from the description in the book, and sometimes you cant go all out because movies work on budgets, and your imagination is free to expand as far as you want. Other problems that occur are having actors do stuff other actors did in the book or having enough time to do everything in the book. What seemed to be the biggest thing in my book is the fact that they had to cut scenes from the book that were less important to trim the movie down. If they were to put every single page on paper into the movie it would have been another hour longer and would have made movie watcher impatient.

In the end, i feel like they actually did a decent job turning Harry Potter from book to a movie. They included a lot of detail from the book, and kept the story on track. I also admired how well the set was designed in the movie, it was not quite what i imaged when reading it, but it was definitely close and very detailed. I think turning something so complex from paper to the big screen would be extremely difficult and they did a great job.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerror's Stone/ Writing

2010-11-05T09:05:00.000-07:00

The Harry Potter series have remained my favorite from the time they came out. I remember listening to my teacher reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerror's Stone to our class when I immidiately went home and begged my mom for the book. J.K. Rowling's world of wizardry is phenominal. The endless creativity including talking to snakes, transfiguration class, playing quidditch, invisibility cloaks, and much more make these novels superior in my eyes. The books are also unlimited in the amount of creativity Rowling wishes to write in them. Because of the thourough use of descriptions, it is easy for the reader to be lost in images in their mind rather than looking at plain text of a book. At times I forget I'm not watching a movie when I read Harry Potter.

The movie differs from the novel in the fact that there is a time limit in addition to a limit in what the director can replicate from the text and put it into a film. Although the movies do a fantastic job in making a movie as close to the books as a film can, it doesn't compare to the fantasy captured in the books. The beginning of the novel where the letters are trying to get to Harry is more drawn out and funny than it is in the movie. I wish chapters such as these were fully illustrated in the movie. Another difference I noticed was that the movie excludes some characters mentioned in the book as well as downplays many characters parts. Peevs was not included in the movies, yet was fairly prominant as the school's poltergeist in the novel. Hermione Granger is also much more likable in the movie than in the novel, until the Halloween chapter. In the novel Hermione is much more pushy and irritating, where in the movie she is cute and witty. Neville Longbottom is also in many more chapters, almost as much as Hermione, but in the movie is hardly there. Physical differences also stood out such as Dudley and Aunt Petunia being blonde where in the movie they were brunette.

For obvious reasons, the screenwriter of Harry Potter and the Sorcerror's Stone couldn't exactly replicate the novel in his film. The film is a creation of its own, which many find just a pleasing as the books. This movie, because it is replicating the shortest novel, probably closest resembles the books than that of any of the other Harry Potter movies. The stars were cleverly casted, and fit the films perfectly. I like how they chose actors only from the UK... Definitely helps create the right mood for the film. I also like how the character's dialogue includes many quotes from the book. This I think was an appropriate way to give credit to the novels, while not using the entire dialogue from the novel, because it wasn't exactly replicated.

Wingardium Leviosa

2010-11-05T08:36:00.000-07:00

Growing up, I was a rather odd kid. Not having many friends led me to find joy in strange places. I remember the first time I ever laid eyes on Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I was ten, a year younger than Harry (by the time I received the books) that which probably added to the moderate obsession I had/have. I opened the first book, the night of my birthday, and began to read. I read through the night totally enraptured with the story, the characters, magic etc. I read until dawn, and when I finally fell asleep I had these dreams about me attending Hogwarts, and living this life of magic. I remember this so well because for about a year afterward, even after reading the second and third book, I waited by my mailbox waiting for my acceptance letter to come.

Now I have read all of the books many times, more than I would like to confess, and I know small unimportant details as well as the main plot points. After rereading the “Sorcerer’s Stone” in probably 5 years I had forgotten a lot of things that were very important that the movie skipped out. According to the ereserve, there parts of the movie that were glossed over that really had an impact on Harry, and his future. When he walking to Platform 9 , he is completely unsure of himself and doesn’t know where to turn, until he sees the Weasly family walking boisterously to the platform. From then on he has found a friend, and throughout the series, he is unsure of what to do without Ron and later on Hermione’s help or opinions. That particular part of the book was foreshadowing the depth and importance of friendship throughout the novels.

The movie however was amazing, and I had forgotten how much I enjoyed the casting and most certainly the plots the screenwriter Steve Kloves (with help from J.K. Rowling of course) choose to highlight. The visit to the zoo on Dudley’s birthday was scripted perfectly. I still laugh today the look on stupid Dudley’s face when he finds he is trapped behind the glass in the reptile house. In the book, it is written almost verbatim for what happens in the film. Having an author help with the screenplay can be amazing to create scenes that could have jumped from the pages of the novel. Although for the most part, being a wiz at knowing Harry Potter, I saw several things that put me off, like the Dursley’s hair or the way Malfoy and Harry meet, and even how Harry attempts to fight off Lord Voldemort. I had to remember to separate the two entities-Harry Potter the books, and Harry Potter the films. Both can be enjoyed exponentially more when you separate the two.

Chocolate Frogs, Alohomora, Fluffy and Quidditch will forever be help in the highest esteem, and I am so glad I got to revisit them through the first book. It almost makes me want to reread the WHOLE series. It is odd to think that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was the beginning, and even that this entire being known as Harry Potter hasn’t been around forever and this novel, this 309 page book started such a craze.

The release date of the first installment of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is November 19, 2010.

Harry Potter

2010-11-05T02:24:00.000-07:00

I was surprised by how much the movie actually did correspond to the book. There were so many lines that were almost exactly the same. And it seemed like only a few things were left out, most likely because of time constraints. I did hear that J. K. Rowling had to approve the screenplays though, so it would make sense that they didn't deviate too much. And the ereserve does mention how much the director of the first two films stuck strongly to the books, while the directors of the later films took more creative liberties. Considering that the later books were longer as well, I can see how more cuts and changes had to be made.

I hadn't read any of the Harry Potter books, but I did see the movies after my sister got me into them. She read all the books before the fifth (or was it sixth?) movie came out. I did really enjoy the movies. I loved how the stories played out and the twists and turns. I found the last movie that came out to be my favorite, although my sister had issues with how much from the book they left out. The ereserve points out how an adaptation can be viewed differently by a knowing and unknowing audience--those who have read the book and those who haven't. And I do think it's important that a movie can be enjoyable for both.

In the past, I have seen movie adaptations that have utterly ruined what were amazing books (Sphere and Timeline, both by Michael Crichton, come to mind). They just made changes that seemed completely unnecessary or else completely changed the story. On the other hand, The Lost World (another Michael Crichton book-turned-movie) deviated completely from the book, but still turned out to be a movie I enjoyed. But the book was better. The book is always better. ;) I suppose the differences between a good adaptation and a bad adaptation depend upon the reasons for the changes being made and the tact of the screenwriter and director.

And of course the fans of the book will object to any changes that are made in bringing the book to the screen. Our textbook talks about literal, faithful, and loose adaptations. I think we go into films expecting that it will be at least somewhat different than the book, but we still expect it to remain true to the story. So, I think that loose adaptations are what upset fans the most, because you go in expecting one thing and see something entirely different.

Harry Potter and the Week of Reading

2010-11-05T01:34:00.000-07:00

First, I would like to say that when you go see a movie that is an adaptation, it is always my advice to people to treat this movie as if it is not a book. Reason being, people have a tendency to be over critical and give the movie a bad rating, when in turn, you have to treat it for what it is: a movie. How many times have you ever heard someone say, “the book was better”? A ton of times I am sure, but have you ever heard anyone say “the movie was better than the book?” Exactly no, and if you have, please tell me what movie/book combo that is. My point is this, for reasons outside of this class, when you see an adaptation, treat it as if you have never read the book. There have only ever been a couple movie/book combos that have really done the book justice in my eyes. Prime example for all you out there if you are curious, Red Dragon, the first book in the Silence of the Lambs series, this movie starring Edward Norton was incredible toward the adaptation.

I really thought the e-reserve reading pointed out something really well that I had never thought of before. What if Harry Potter had been filmed in America? I never would have thought that even filming in England would be such an important part of adapting the books to film. I never even thought of that, and I thought about movies that really rely on the location. Imagine if you would have changed every location in books like Congo, or Jurassic Park, or more recently Dan Brown books, that rely so much on locations in Europe. Another part of the e-reserve I thought interesting was the part about their references to racism. Honestly when I first read the books and then saw the movies, I never imagined certain individuals a particular race. I thought it was interesting since I never really put a race to any of the characters really.

As far as Chapter 9, I think in most recent TV shows and movies, especially with comedies, you see a trend of indirect references that only some people will understand. In a lot of movies and TV shows now a days, they make jokes that reference something that only people know, like the book said, hardcore fans in some respect. However some of them go unnoticed and you have to go back and really hear it again to find it funny. An example I can think of is in Zombieland when she said she saw her first rated R movies Anaconda. This movie wasn’t rated R, so I was literally the only person who laughed in the theatre. I forgot about the literary adaptations in their categories, loose, faithful and literal. I liked the books example of Sideways, probably one of my favorite movies, or at least in my top ten, it is so well done, and the writing is magnificent.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (or Philosopher's Stone) was one of those books that I flew threw, mostly because I had already seen the movie. I read all 6 (at the time) within 3 weeks, and was in eager anticipation of the 7^th. The first book was such an easy read that it made you want more. After reading it again (it had been a couple years) it was really hard for me to not picture the movie. Although I had already seen the movie prior to reading the book, I never not saw the movie if that makes sense. I love these books and I was a nay say-er at first.

The movie to film adaptation in my eyes was actually pretty good. There are scenes that are different obviously but as I wrote before, I don’t watch these movies to constantly critique or criticize how the screenplay was written. There was a lot more character development in the book that the movie lacked, but that is because you can’t make a direct adaptation. I am hoping however, that Deathly Hallows will be a more direct adaptation since there is so much to cover, and one movie was impossible to do it in.

Finally, my words I give to my friends and readers on my movie site is, don’t take things so literally when you are watching an adaptation, because you are going to lose the point of going to a movie and enjoy a movie for what it really it, pure entertainment!

I wish Richard Harris hadn’t passed away, because I thought he was a much better Dumbledore, and when I read the books, I always picture him.

Fun Fact: Do you know that Dumbledore is another term for a bumble bee?

Kevin Daniel

Harry Potter

2010-11-05T01:27:00.000-07:00

Comparing a book to a movie can be like comparing apples to pears sometimes because the movie that is going to be made must be "molded" accordingly so that the actors and other circumstances fit well. The story is the most important for an audience when it comes to making a movie from the book. The story disappoints viewers often when it is different than the book.

It is more rare for movies to turn into books than book into movies and now a days we have video games turn into movies.The book must be broken down into several parts. These parts are charactirized by plots, details and story which is plot related. This is why often movies will ommit a few things and alot of "boring" detail or unnecessary detail that is not deemed as important to tell a story in a film.

Harry Potter is one of the films that has been made into a movie from a book.It is a long movie however not as long as the book of course and the director worked with the writer for best possible results.Because a good screenplay is important it is not hard to overcome some details and often viewers have all sort of differect perpective of the character and details, thus it can become disappointing. It is not easy to make a movie out of a book.

10/29 - The Sorcerer's Stone/Writing, etc

2010-11-04T23:55:00.000-07:00

I haven't ever seen any of the Harry Potter movies or read any of the books so this was a pretty heavy intro into what that's all about. I thought that it was a pretty entertaining movie all and all though I am not huge on fantasy movies or books. I think I saw the second Lord of The Rings and felt the same way, it was entertaining but I couldn't see myself getting really into all of the movies or books.

Anyway, I do agree with most that the movie did a very good job covering the book. It was good for me personally to watch the movie before reading the book, I definitely had the images from the movie floating through my head going from chapter to chapter. It was a really good translation, I felt like for the most part the only major differences were details in character development and some of the scenes. Like setting up Harry a little more with "strange things," always happening while he was around like his hair growing back after Petunia cuts it all off, or running from Dudley and jumping onto the roof, or the scene when Hagrid brings Harry the cake was a lot different in the movie. There were a lot of small differences but really most of it was things that were difficult to put in a movie anyway so it was good work. There were times when you could see slight variations in the dialogue too but the movie did a great job of translating the dialogue from the book as well. I feel like you have to keep in mind one of the points in the reading that in a lot of movies the actual dialogue from the screenplay is changed on the spot or tweaked a little by the actors too.

I think that the writing speaks for itself with Harry Potter, it is obviously very popular and very well written. Whoever adapted it is probably a very talented writer themself. When I was reading the chapter and when I think of writing in movies I always think of the movie "Adaptation." Aside from being a great movie it really provides a yes neurotic and hilarious but I think a somewhat realistic insight into being a screenwriter. The dialogue between Nicolas Cage's characters of Charlie and Donald Kaufman is hilarious. Anyway I think that the actual Sorcerer's Stone was obviously a huge symbol in the book and movie of both the major theme of the story which I thought was fantasy but also power and mystery. After having a chance to read some blogs I would also agree that Harry's scar is definitely good example of a visual metaphor in the writing as well. Do you ever find out why it is a lightning bolt? Anyway I think that the dialogue translation from book to movie was great too. Good movie.

Week Ten - Writing/Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

2010-11-04T20:23:00.000-07:00

Whew! What a week of reading! Reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone before, it was nice to refresh my memory with a nice re-read. (I forgot why I liked it so much, but that’s probably because I first read the book when I was in the 6^th grade. Go figure!) Concerning what struck me about the reading in the book was how detailed the writer, J.K. Rowling is. In the book, Rowling is so detailed in the sense that each character is so much more emotionally involved with themselves and each other. I feel like there is more depth. (Obviously, because the book is considerably longer than the film is.) Another fact: Everyone who reads a book, is going to compare it to a film that is made about it. Example: Lovely Bones. Loved the book, but wasn’t all that thrilled with the movie.

When talking about the ereserve piece that we were also assigned, there are parts that discuss just how much more is expressed through the writing of the book. In the writing of the book, there were more in depth parts such as the part where Harry is on the train to Hogwarts. In the movie, it’s such a short scene, a transitional scene to get Harry and his fellow classmates to Hogwarts (and to meet Hermione.) Where as, in the book, Harry and Ron meet, they sit together on the train, and have a more in depth discussion about Ron, and his family, his life. Also, they get all the crazy candy from the trolley. “Harry had never had anything to share before, or, indeed, anyone to share it with.” (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, J.K. Rowling) Though a small sentence from the book, it reflects the life that he once had living with his relatives. Also in the ereserve, the article discusses how the Harry Potter series of movies have changed, and even how the characters have adapted due to a change in directors/screenwriters and the way directors/screenwriters may want the books to come across. They have to be careful though, not to tick off the die-hard fans of the Harry Potter series.

So I don’t really have too much knowledge on who has more power here concerning the film: The writer of the book, or the screenwriter of this particular movie. I do wonder, did J.K. Rowling, Chris Columbus, and Steve Kloves work together, and if so, how much? Chris Columbus, the director, couldn’t possibly have included every detail, every Quidditch match, or even every person. (He didn’t.) There is just simply not enough time. I do however think the screenwriter, Steve Kloves, did an excellent job at including what he could throughout the movie.

One part that stood out to me in our Understanding Movie’s reading, was the part about having good dialogue. I think finding a good rhythm of speech, good choices of how things are worded are extremely important with writing a screenplay. Reading the part about the “North by Northwest: Reading Version,” completely blew my mind. The writing is so detailed and precise, you can’t try to imagine in your head any other way. Another part in the reading is, the literary adaptations in the book. “Furthermore, the better the literary work, the more difficult the adaptation.” I think Kloves had a faithful adaptation from novel to film. Overall, I’m glad I got to revisit Harry Potter!

Harry Potter

2010-11-04T17:32:00.000-07:00

So it had been about ten years since I have orignially read the first Harry Potter book and honestly I was suprised at how much I remembered. I guess good books stay with you. Now, I'm no wait in likne for the book/movie Harry Potter fan, but I can definately appreciate its creativity and longevity. As everyone knows with any film adaptation from a novel or book, some aspects will be lost. Scenes will be compressed or completely cut for timeliness, characters may be changed for conveinience, as well as certain possibly insignificant plot points. The important thing for a film adaptation to do is bring to the screen the idea or "heart" of the story as much as possible. I feel like Philip Nel may have been a little too hard on the first two Potter films. i understand his points about dropping certain things that would have brought us closer to the characters, but honestly I'm sure most of the excitement that had been built up about the movie was seeing them bring to life all the amazing buildings, characters, and decorations from the novel. For that matter I think columbus did a good job balancing giving people the visual stimulus they hoped for along with holding on to the characters they had already developed bonds with. Of course those bonds would only be already formed with the knowing audience, but there was enough character development given for the unknowing audience also to attach.

Having seen the movie only about a dozen times I was constantly picking out the differences from the book as I read it, my own interpretive doubling so to speak. Everything from the color differences of characters hair, to the point in time in which characters are introduced to one another. The book does an excellent job of bringing characters to you at the right moment, and then bringing them around again when it matters most. The film also does well at this, only in its own individual adaptive style. For anyone who has read a novel and then seen the film, it's easy to be at odds with the film because it's not how we imagined it. If we were to, alternatively, try and view the film independently of our previous knowledge of the book I feel we can attain, or at least strive for, a btter acceptance, and perhaps even enjoyment of the film (except for Da Vinci Code, terrible adaptation).

The first Potter film definately strove to be a faithful adaptation of the novel, and was successful at that. In the movie the director managed to play out a lot of metaphors through the story. For example the platform 9 3/4 seemed to sybolize a crossraods from one reality to another one. Even the station itself was named King's Cross, coincedence? I think not. Also Harry's scar offers a visual metaphor for the evil that has permanately scarred his life. He can never remove the anguish of losing his parents, a subject of great importance in the film, nor can he wash away the scar from his face. The irony is the scar in which embodies his pain, also acts as the recognition of his fame. Anyone who questions whether or not it is the real Harry Potter they are speaking to need only request he show them his scar, and all doubt fades.

Harry Potter

2010-11-04T15:31:00.001-07:00

No matter what, the transition of a story from book to film is never going to satisfy anyone, and probably disappoint most who have read the book. But I feel it’s the movies that stray s the least from the book that end up having the best transitions. But it’s not only that, I also feel like the movie has to add something extra that the book had obvious limitation to. Film has so many different resources to convey a certain mood, scene, or feeling of a character. If they don’t use these tools properly according to the ways in which it was done in the book, they will ultimately have disappointed viewers.

I remember reading this book around the age of eleven before the movie had come out. I remember not really liking the book, and decided not to move on with the rest of the series. So, when I saw the movie, I was open minded about the changes they had made in script and scenes. Ultimately, I liked the movie more than the book, and I usually NEVER do. One scene that I remember from the book was the chess scene near the end. When I was reading the book back then, I thought that the character became literal parts of the chess match, not only standing in for the players. There are changes like that in the movie that don’t necessarily take away from the story, but do make you unsure about that scene. Because, when you’re watching the movie, all you can think about is the changes that were made, and you forget to focus on the movie as a whole. This is one wall that no movie ever really succeeds in doing when they’re transitioning a book to a movie.

A great movie that has done the best at this (at least that I’ve ever seen) is little children with Kate Winslet. One element of that movie that makes the movie follow the story is the type of narration. The narration in this movie a man with a sort of storybook kind of tone. It connects the movie with the book so well. This movie is featured in this week’s chapter as well. The book claims that Little Children never seems too “talky or literary,” which is absolutely true.

After reading Harry Potter again, I could no longer imagine my own characters or scenes. They were all replaced by what was in the movie. It’s like my brain could only hold one idea of the characters and scenery, and threw out all the imagery I had come up with on my own.

Harry Potter+book, ereserve, writing!

2010-11-04T15:01:00.000-07:00

I have seen all the Harry Potter movies, and it was nice to come back to the first one again because it has been along time since I have seen this one. I was such a nerd when all these books came out, I read most of them in like a week :/ ha. I could not wait to see all the movies. As I got older, I stopped reading the books because I was busy with school and work, however I still get excited to see the movies. One regret I have is that I never finished reading the series because now the movies are not as clear. The ones where I read the corresponding book were ten times better then the movies I had not read the book for. Still, I enjoy both the films and the books equally.

HPSS-
It is amazing to me how well the movie matches the book. Especially in the earlier movies. In the beginning I feel they focused on matching the book well, but as each movie came out less and less of the books were in the movies. Obviously there are a few reasons for this, 1) they are 600+ page books and 2) the movies would be hours long if they tried to fit in everything. I do think that Sorcerers's Stone is one of the better movies when it comes to matching how amazing the book is.

Writing-
I liked the section about North by Northwest; seeing the way the script looks and how the actors delivered it was cool. I wonder how much of the dialogue for Harry Potter were lines from the books? The line "...with motifs representing the least obtrusive, metaphors the most conspicuous..." (p. 385) fits Harry Potter well because there are always metaphors floating around in the movies waiting to come out, and there are so many symbols. One symbol from Prisoner of Azkaban is Hermione's necklace. What looks like a necklace lets her travel back in time, something we do not find out until the end.

Ereserve-
The first couple pages talks about how the director and screenwriters were not faithful to the book, and I disagree. As I said above, I feel the first movies were great at adapting the book to the screen. After reading about the additions to the movie that were not in the book, I think they were a positive thing. "The differences between the book and movie exemplify how small changes can create larger ripples." I feel that this is true too. We do not need to see people talking every second, sometimes special effects can add humor and some fun. This line towards the end defends my position. "However, adaptations need not be divided into good and bad (or into understanding and cheesy). Successful and less successful, certainly. But there should be a wide range of opinions on the merits and demerits of the films."

2010-11-04T13:27:00.001-07:00

Harry Potter and writing.
The Harry Potter films have never really caught my attention. I saw the first movie and will admit I did have a good plot and new ideas when it came to film and plots. To me the movie and the idea seem to be too long and at time I would get lost in dialogue. The movie to me was talking too much and perhaps even the English accent was also making it hard for me too. Reading parts of the book and then seeing the movie made more of an impact than when I first saw the movie.

I was able to get into the book a lot easier than the movie. The movie had almost the same effect as when I first saw the movie. The book and the movie have a great writing and screenplay. I never thought I would be reading the book but I can admit that I rather read the book than see the movie. The book is a lot more descriptive and more emphatic. The author does a great job in transferring their feelings and the feelings of each character. Unfortunately, the author has to rely on the authors to make the feeling be felt. The part that comes to mind from the book and the movie is when Harry is asked about some plants and a stone found in a goat. The movie does a great job with Mise en Scene and how they stage characters in the class room and the lighting. In the book seems more dramatic and to me, it give almost double the description. The Book also made an interesting point on how some screenplays are meant for certain actors. This makes sense since I don’t see anyone else doing Bruce in Bruce Almighty. The books states the authors will write their story that is tailor fitted to certain actors. The book also states that in some movies there are more than just one author. Some people might think that his may be a problem but for the most part movies with multiple authors have been some of the best pictures and classic movies. The book talks about how Casa Blanca had multiple authors and it became a classic. The filme was released during WWII, but it still gave the audience a way to dream and hope.

Homework

2010-10-31T11:14:00.000-07:00

Just a reminder:

You have not only Chapter 9 to read for next week, but Harry Potter Book 1 and an e-reserve article about "translating" Harry Potter from the page to the screen. So make sure you include all three readings with your movie comments in your posts this week.

Also, don't forget to "tag" your posts, at least with your name.

See you next week!

star wars

2010-10-29T11:37:00.000-07:00

i think the older versions and the newer version of star wars show vast inconsistency technologically wise and acting wise. The editing is kinda advanced for that time and swipe were used which actually looked good.

The characters are probably the most important elements of this film, of all the francises.Creating strong, memorable characters is a very good idea, and important in any film. It allows viewers to sympathasize with the characters because they are likeable and often they cannot be killed.

darth vader is a creative character that transcends from good to evil and his transformation shows throughout the whole francises.

There isalotof simbolism and possibly an integrated cult system in this movie and all of them. "Using the force" seems to be the catch phrase. real life people have actually created spin off beliefs from all of these movies and concept.

In terms of production this movie was a huge hit for its time as many of the things were hand models and it was not easy or as real as today's movies and the newer star wars.Overall a historic movie indeed

Star Wars

2010-10-29T10:42:00.000-07:00

This was the first time I have ever watched Star Wars so the plot/storyline was very hard to grasp. The dialogue of the futuristic characters was also somewhat hard to understand. All the names of the droids were hard to remember who they were talking about (R2D2, Ob1 konobe, C30P...ect). I understood that their was a rebellion against the empire, and they were feuding from the past light year war? I felt like that story was told in the few paragraphs in the beginning that we read and then you were left alone to interpret what was going on.

I tend to notice a lot of other concepts that we have talked about in class however. Darth Vader was all black (bad) and Princess Laia was in all white (good). The whole color theme with the lasers was dramatic in the beginning, with bad being portrayed as red light and good being green. However, in the end fight Darth Vador's side had green lasers in their planes and the planes on Luke's side were orange. I didn't understand why the colors were switched around. Their plane fighting scene reminded me of Independence Day and Pearl Harbor plane fighting scenes. I found it interesting that a lot of the characters did not speech, but only mumbled. Although the "machine talk" did not have words their pitches of their voices as well as their actions still told what they were trying to say. Also, Harrison Ford's acting sucked!!! The costumes of the robots looked so uncomfortable. They has piece of plastic with cuts out around their butts and arms and legs. There were a lot of transitions in the movie. I noticed sliding, circling in and out, clock-like turning.

Overall, the film seemed very good considering it was from 1977. The story was somewhat hard to understand but I still got the main ideas and could understand what was going on.

Star Wars: A New Hope/ Story

2010-10-29T10:14:00.000-07:00

Wow! This movie was made in 1977? That was two years after I was born; I didn't realize it was that old because it is still well received. Starting with, I was kind of lost in the storyline and generational information. It would've been nice to know the actual dialogue of the strange desert creatures and R2-D2. The tone used kind of let on to the direction of what was being said. This film reminds me of an old science fiction film where there's not much dialogue. The music that plays though kind of sets the scene. C3PO and R2-D2's relationship is avery tight and comical. It's one of true attachment and love.

I could definitely tell this was the original version because there's never ablackout between scenes and settings.

Young Luke has the voice of Beaver from "Leave it tio Beaver"-the same lazy tone of innocence-inquisical one might say.

The old ignition of one's inner gut and resourcefulness is used when getting Young Luke to follow in his father's (Big Luke's) footsteps, hence the "New Hope." There's nothing left to lose once Young Luke's home is destroyed by fire(singed) so now he's unbound and free to learn the ways of the force to become a Jedi.

It's mythical but so realistic in the setting and tone of the "bar" scene. The dialogue used instigates the fight that ensues. The audio sound is not so good. It may have been the tape but it sounded dubbed.

The movie was quite humorous and comical in certain scenes with witty comments and playful manner amongst the friendlies. Luke, Princess Leah, the ape looking one, and Harrison Ford's character develop a sense of comaraderie.

It included the classical paradigm with the exposition, rising action, the climax, and denouement. The genre was basically the Good versus Evil and the Good triumphed.

A New Hope

2010-10-29T09:54:00.000-07:00

I am an 80's baby so this is a movie I grew up on, did I always understand it? No. To be able to watch this movie again being that I am now older, it helps me in appreciating this movie. If you were a first time viewer/spectator I think you can get the just of the movie by the name of the movie and the rolling story into space in the beginning. it definitely sets up the movie. I might be wrong, but when the movie was released the actors were all fairly new so we couldn't really apply narrative parameters, we didn't really know what kind of characters they played. Seeing Harrison Ford (Han Solo) in this movie actually led to his future narrative parameters because he went on to playing heroic roles, with one of his most famous roles being Indian Jones.

When the movie starts it quickly sets up the protagonist and the antagonist. C-P30 and R2-D2 get captured, they meet up with Luke because he purchases them. Luke discovers a message that has been programed in R2-D2 that Princess Laia had programed into the robot asking for the help of Obi-Wan Kanobi. Luke knows a Kenobi and assumes it's the same person so he goes out to find Kenobi in the hills. He finds Kenobi and finds out that it is the same person and this begins the set up of roles. Once these two roles are filled it then leads starts the build up to the climax which in action movies its the big "fight scene". You quickly find out who the protagonist are: Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker and the antgonist: Darth Vader. The Classical Paradigm is a perfect example of how movies play out. The inciting incident was when R2-D2 played the holographic message because now at this point the characters have a reason to fight. This particular scene was when Luke decided he was gonna help out in the quest that was requested in the message. The rising and falling action was when Obi Wan let Darth Vader strike him down, but then that just builds up to Luke Skywalkers avenge!

One of the things I loved about this movie was the characters that didn't speak, they still had a form of communication and us as the viewers were still able to understand what was going on by their actions. I also thinks that the costumes that were created for this movie were way ahead of time. The complexity of the costumes could be used today and still hold up. The lasers and the holographic message is a part of life the scientist are still trying to get to. I think with the Star War movies you either love them or hate them, I still haven't made my mind up.

A New Hope and Story

2010-10-29T09:49:00.000-07:00

Star Wars is a classic. I remember watching Star Wars when I was very young on television, and i always loved everything about it. It really is magic that was created on screen for us viewers to get to enjoy, and was a start of one of the greatest trillions ever made! What makes Star Wars A New Hope so great is not its special effects or creative use of special effects which i strongly admire, but the story itself is so well developed with many twists and turns through the entire movie, and serious.

Star Wars A New Hope has one of the best developed story of the trilogy and is why it is perfect to start of the series. It helps build up to each Star Wars episode that follows and helps develop the characters extremely well. A New Hope introduces all the main characters to the trilogy and introduces there personality's really well by developing them through out the movie. Take Luke Sky walker for example, he is shown through out the entire movie to be the ultimate good guy. He only wants to help those in need and to protect the galaxy from the dark empire. And Han Solo is shown to be extremely cocky and erogent, and they play off that quite a bit int he serious.

One of my favorite things about Star Wars A New Hope is that it builds for the rest of the episodes. It really makes me admire the skill of the writers to be able to wright episode one, two, and three so well to lead right into A New Hope. The ability to develop characters so well off of movies that have not been created yet is strongly admired. Also the use of A New Hope to create the story for the last two episodes is something special with all the twist like Darth Vader being Luke's dad. And Princess Laya actually being his sister are great twists that keep a story interesting and exciting!

After watching A New Hope again, and being able to just admire the story it is amazing to see at what lengths people went to make the story special and exciting. I admire all the work the writers put into the movie to play off all of the other episodes with small details that hint on what will happen. The characters are introduced and developed extremely well, and definitely make the story something special.

Star Wars/Story

2010-10-29T08:23:00.000-07:00

Star Wars: A New Hope-- Haven't watched this movie in a very long time. I didn't even remember the storyline when recently watching it. I was thouroughly impressed though by the futuristic element obtained when the film came out in 1977! Even though the movie is a little dated, by no means was the qaulity of the costumes or sets dated. Beacause all of the props were so different from anything of the 1970's time, it is easy to picture as a movie from the actual future. The major difference I noticed was the computer effects which have made the aliens look more real in the newer star wars movies. Although, I believe the aliens and their voices in A New Hope was much more entertaining to me than those of the new films.

Star Wars A New Hope would be an example of classical narrative because in the beggining and end of the movie, the viewer is narrated about what's going on in the future at this time, as if diving into a chapter of a book. Star wars is famous for its' intro and outro narratives... it's funny because it is such a simple narrative yet very impactful.

Star Wars may be hard to follow at times because the "futuristic" style of speech they talk in; however, there are other visual clues to help the audience piece together what is happeneing. It was clear who was on the good side and bad side because seeing who was fighting who (enemy of Luke/Obi-Wan/Han Solo was bad), and who was running from which characters(Leia running from Darth Vader and the storm troopers). In general, A New Hope is a traditional movie where good must go against evil and save the princess, yet the futuristic element may make it seem more complex. Star Wars in a whole would be considered a classical paradigm but because it is broken up into episodes, I'm not sure if each episode really "resolves" as a classical paradigm does. Star Wars is definitely a science fiction film, probably the epitome of the genre. Because the movie takes place in the far future, including technological advances beyond our, it is science fiction to it's core.

The chapter story points out that movies all have a narrating structure, the audience is so used to these narratives that in many films it is hard to distinguish these. I thought it was interesting that in movies where there isn't a narrator speaking to you in the film, there are implied images that help the audience piece together what is going on. I never thought of it as a narrative before. Thinking back on it, I never realized how moive do have the main character narrating the sotry. Movies of highschoolers such as The Breakfast Club, Mean Girls, Juno all the way to dramtic films such as Titanic, Fight Club, and Amadeus(antagonist narrating) all have the leading characters narrate. It's only in movies such as Shakespeare's Henry V that I notice an obvious narration. Interesting... I also thought the section discussing the classical paradigm was cool. It's odd to me that whether movies are a huge success or failure, use this as a default set up for the movie. The section about the screenwriter also struck me... I feel like the script for the movie can make or break a film.. yet with successful films, I hear little recognition of the screenwriter. Is this only because I'm not involved intensely in the film world?

"These aren't the droids you're looking for"

2010-10-29T08:20:00.000-07:00

Star Wars. What is there to say that has not already been said? This movie legacy has shaped popular culture is ways that I would never expect. EVERYONE has seen at least one movie from the six epics. It is a theme that will constantly remain in the conscious limelight.

I have seen all the Star Wars films, and I would say A New Hope is the obvious classic, the beginning of a long journey that spans decades. I have never watched the original 1977 version because as a kid, I grew up with the ones that were rereleased in the 90’s. I hadn’t seen A New Hope in so long, and I had forgotten how great it was. As a kid growing up, I loved R2D2. I had a fantastic costume of that little droid, and for a while after I saw A New Hope for the first time (and for a while after) I even tried to mimic the chirps and whistles that little R2 did. It was nice to watch this movie again, in a bit more of a mature fashion because I could really see why these movie created what they have today in the way of a massive cult following.

A relatively simple storyline with a few twist and turns, but it goes back to the basic Hero’s Journey. The “Call of Adventure”, when Obi Wan Kenobi offers Luke the life of a Jedi, and the way of the force. Luke refuses, which plays into the next step, “Refusal of the Call”; because he has obligations at home, and to the farm, from where Obi Wan begins to show Luke things from his father’s past and tell these stories which makes Obi Wan the “Supernatural Aid,” the next step in the Hero’s Journey. The entire movie follows this Journey perfectly, and because it does so in such a simple if not abstract way, that it calls to humans quiet desire to have or see an adventure of epic proportions. The Hero’s Journey in Star Wars also follows the Classic Paradigm closely with each step in the Hero Journey creating a new scene in the Classic Paradigm with rising action. There is a climax to each film, as well as a climax to the end of the series, and each of the films in the series are one step closer to the climax and eventually the resolution at the end, which I will not say for fear of people that haven’t seen it.

A formalistic narrative, Star Wars: A New Hope shows our world, what adventures can accomplish and the primal battle between Good, and Evil. The Empire versus The Rebellion. The reason this film and its predecessors are and will be so ingrained in the human conscious is because it is the human conscious speaking. People want to see good win over evil, no matter the weapon, whether it be wit or light saber. And what an adventure this story makes.

Story/ A New Hope

2010-10-29T02:33:00.000-07:00

(This was done by some friends of my roommate. I dig it.)

I'm sad to admit that this was my first time seeing A New Hope. I saw episode one when I was younger but I'm glad that I've finally seen the first movie of the series. I very much enjoyed this film.

As far as story goes, I definitely saw a bit of the "Classical Paradigm" in the storyline. It wasn't exactly a textbook definition of the term but the movies had a lot of characteristics of the classical paradigm. One of Luke's conflicts being the death of his family and somewhat wanting revenge on the evil empire. From there to the point where the rebellion destroy the Deathstar is a decent example. Especially the ending, with the victory of the rebels and the ceremony where the princess presents Han Solo and Luke with medals.

Though it wasn't a very long movie, I thought the characters were very well developed and you had a chance to sort of get to know and love them. You obviously get a chance to do that either way since there are five more movies. I also like the famous beginning with the rolling words that give you a brief description of what is going on in the story.

It being a science fiction film, it's definitely formalistic. It's kind of funny seeing the special effects since I'm used to some of the more advanced technology of film. But I feel like it let me pay attention to the story a bit more. I wasn't paying attention to a bunch of flashy over done special effects. Though I'm sure when the movie came out, the special effects were considered pretty top of the line, there's still a good balance.

I'm glad I finally watched this movie and I'm stoked to watch the rest.
Bye!

Star Wars

2010-10-29T01:58:00.000-07:00

I've seen Star Wars so many times since I was a kid that I've come to memorize their voice inflections, so I thought it would be interesting to try and see this movie with new eyes and imagine what it would be like seeing it for the first time and watching the story unfold. I think they did a good job with introducing the audience to the various features of this unique universe, with aliens, the Empire vs. Rebellion, the concept of the Force, etc. I liked how each of the characters is introduced as well.

Exposition is one thing that stood out to me in the reading. Star Wars probably has one of the most famous means of exposition with the iconic music and the backstory scrolling across the screen. It is rather direct, but it helps to set up this fantasy world in a galaxy far, far away and the struggle currently going on. Otherwise, we might be completely lost when we're thrust onto a starship in the middle of a battle.

I noticed that Luke, the protagonist, really isn't introduced until a ways into the film. And he starts out as just this farmboy with a dull life, but you come to care so much about him and his journey. I've read The Writer's Journey by Christopher Vogler, which is based on the Hero's Journey structure, and Star Wars is a great example of that. The Matrix is also a good example. It follows the classical paradigm but goes into more detail about the different steps the hero takes along the way. But, in Star Wars, we see how the rising action takes Luke from his simple life into greater and greater conflict, culminating in the destruction of the Death Star and defeating the Empire (for now).

I can also see a lot of archetypal characters in this movie: Ben Kenobi, the wise old man; Han Solo, the shady smuggler who turns out to be a pretty nice guy; Princess Leia, the lady in distress. Plus, there's the whole good vs. evil concept which we see a lot. Star Wars definitely draws a lot from myth, but I think it's also helped to shape the standards of its genre due to its popularity.

A New Hope and Story

2010-10-29T01:16:00.000-07:00

   I am sure a lot of people are Star Wars nerds and have seen this movie over and over again. I will admit that I am one, but I am more of a Trekkie. Honestly, I like them both equally which is unheard of in most die hard circles. A New Hope is a classic, and it is one of those that everyone should see at some point in their lives. I know a lot of girls have never seen it because of the whole "sci-fi is for guys" thing, but really this movie has such a compelling story line, that when most people give it a chance, they fall in love with the whole plot line.
   After having read the chapter about story, and watching Star Wars, I did something different when I watched it again. Instead of watching it from the story line of Luke, I tried watching it through the eyes of a character who shared the screen as much as he, Han Solo. It was interesting to watch the movie and trying to focus more on Han then the hero of the story Luke. At first, you really don't know who the story line is about and really now that I think about it, the story really follows the droids the most, as they are the whole reason everything is happening in the movie. Regardless, the story line remains the same, I guess I was just trying to watch the movie through a different narrative, and it was interesting to stray away from the main character.
   The story is great though, but ever since I was young, I never could really attach onto the story as much as I could with Star Trek. With Star Wars trilogy (the original) it was all fantasy and make believe. Star Trek's story however was more based around things that could actually happen. Yes it is a stretch, but the story for myself personally was easier to grasp onto because what if in the 24th Century, we had all those things that they had in Star Trek? Through the reading, it really made me look at this, because I am a fan of science fiction, and as the book quoted Spielberg, sci-fi really lets your imagination run free. I would have to agree with that, but there is something about Star Trek that makes it more enjoyable when you have the thought in your mind "Maybe one day..."
   Another thing that made me laugh while reading was the part about genres. I have quite a DVD/Blu-Ray collection and I catalog my entire library, and try to give a genre to every film I own. It is so true, that there are so many different types of genre and it makes it difficult sometimes to classify a film with a particular genre.
   Overall, I really like Star Wars, but have to say that Empire Strikes Back is by far the best one of the series, and it is too bad it is Episode V, because I would have loved to watch that one for the story plot, since it was so much better then any of the other five movies.

Funny Clip involving Vader and James Earl Jones:

Kevin Daniel

Funny Moment: Did any of you catch the Stormtrooper walking into the room where the droids were hiding, and hit his head on the door?

10/22 - A New Hope/Story

2010-10-28T21:34:00.000-07:00

It had been a real long time since I last saw this movie. Unfortunately I never really watched any of the old Star Wars movies all the way through when I was I kid so I naturally kind of jumble them all together. Even while we were in class watching this one I kept wondering where Yoda was. I don't know when it will be but I think I will eventually have to have a Star Wars-a-thon and watch the entire collection so I can get the story line straight.

Anyway, I thought A New Hope was a good movie. I think that the new Star Wars movies are more entertaining than the old ones but that is not to say that the story is any better. I think that from a story telling aspect the entire Star Wars collection requires a great deal of attention from the audience, it is kind of one of those "simply cut a few notes," things like the Viennese Emperor's advice to Mozart in "Amadeus." Aside from that you certainly need to tip your hat to George Lucas on the front of revolutionizing technique, story, sound, special-effects, and many other areas in film-making with the making of the Star Wars movies.

I think that everybody likes a movie with a good story. I found many movies in the examples from the reading that are some of my favorites such as E.T., The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, their stories all more or less follow the classical paradigm. Mulholland Drive was in there, that was always quite the bewildering one of the bunch, I think it would definitely fall under the avant-garde category, its a good one too though. It was interesting reading about Freud's thoughts on art being a by-product of neurosis or a reflection of underlying structures of meaning and a form of daydreaming and wish fulfillment. I agree to some extent, I certainly feel that art is the most powerful way to communicate or express emotion. Anyway it was good to get back in touch with Star Wars, they are all a huge landmark in film and story not to mention the theme music is classic!

Week Nine - Story/Star Wars: A New Hope

2010-10-28T21:31:00.000-07:00

So glad we got to watch Star Wars: A New Hope, especially on the "antiquated thing" (tape)... Haha! This is a classic, and historically a huge phenomenon in popular culture. People are crazy about Star Wars! What struck me about the reading this week was the section on being The Spectator. I believe a spectator of a film or of a television show are so important because of how we do take in and judge what is being played out in front of us. From the writers point of view, the plot is a structured storyline that keeps us as spectators focused, and I think Star Wars is a perfect example of a film succeeding at sucking the viewer in and keeping them fully focused on what is going on.
The basic theme of story is simply described as showing and telling, and that's exactly how I would describe the word story. The original movie was released May 25, 1977. Though some of the effects in the movie are sort of "lame" technology wise, it's still so damn cool to watch! Here's a fun fact: "Refusing to accept the limitations of filmmaking at the time, Lucas created his own visual effects company, Industrial Light & Magic, to deliver the hundreds of shots that were required to make his vision a reality." This is on his website, http://www.lucasfilm.com/. The beginning is an important part of the story, because it gives viewers a brief summary of just what is happening in this 'world' so we know what to expect. It's as if we're thrown into a story. Star Wars is the only movie I can think of that has the opening crawl of the story moving up the screen. (With the exception of spoofs, of course) But it's such a different way of introducing spectators to a movie, and did for it's time.
Then there are the characters that are introduced within the first fifteen to twenty minutes. There's Princess Leia, Darth Vader, C3PO, R2D2, Luke Skywalker, and even Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi! We know a pretty fair background of each chatacter, (for the most part) and this helps us understand other events and situations that happen throughout the movie. George Lucas is a beast. I mean, this was his third film, and Star Wars is still such a huge deal to people around the world. "Once I got into Star Wars, it struck me that a whole generation was growing up without fairy tales. You just don't get them anymore, and that's the best stuff in the world--adventures in far off lands." -George Lucas. All in all, I could watch this sci-fi fantasy movie a gazillion more times and be just as in love with it as the first time... And though this is off topic, watching Star Wars this week made me remember something: My twin sister and I thought it was the coolest thing ever to have Jedi names, (because a cereal box had a Jedi Name Translator on the back we had discovered.) So I went to the extent of finding a website so YOU TOO can have a Jedi name. (The website is similar to what I remember...) What? They sounded cool! .....Ohhh, my childhood. . . Enjoy!
http://www.xach.com/misc/jedi.html

Story Wars

2010-10-28T20:07:00.000-07:00

Oh Star Wars...virtually all aspects of this film have been critiqued, stolen from, amplified, or in other various ways projected throughout popular culture since the film's conception. The phrase "May the Force be with you" has become a household standard, and countless incarnations of the characters plague the global market, whether in action figure form or digitally in the video game realm. This science fiction story encompasses many traditional themes and symbols, the most obvious of which is the timeless "good vs. evil" predicament. I personally must be in a very specific mood to enjoy science fiction, however the Star Wars series has displayed an uncanny ability to captivate a variety of people regardless of their taste in films. There are a variety of reasons for this- the special effects were monumental for the time, Harrison Ford, the film's ability to utilize age old themes in a futuristic sense, Harrison Ford, the use of light sabers, and Harrison Ford. Having been born well after the films theatrical debut, I see the acting and script as very cheesy, the special effects are olden and faded, but Harrison Ford is a golden nugget, and E woks are kind of funny.

This film is a new take on a timeless issue. From the beginning of story telling, the heroic journey has been crafted and retold in infinite versions. Said journey has become a very general archetype with various sub archetypal characters which can be embodied in every genre, in this case science fiction. This film still has very similar qualities to others concerning the plot, the main one which I wish to elaborate on is the notion that the ordinary person or protagonist is capable of accomplishing greatness beyond previous plausibility. In A New Hope, Luke Skywalker goes from ordinary low life to savior of all that is good, much like how Harry Potter goes from a cupboard to the "boy who lived" in almost the blink of an eye. This reoccurring instance emerges in plots time and again because of its power to captivate the ordinary viewer, and make them believe that they too have a chance to change their stars and not be stuck in a mundane existence.

A New Hope illustrates the Classical Paradigm very well. The beginning of the movie sets up certain parameters which show the "limits" of the specific reality (space travel, droids, etc). The set up of the plot happens in a very Formalistic manner, meaning that the dialogue and action of each scene very clearly outlines the sequence of events which are taking place (different from the Realistic approach where the viewer must infer from the abstract what the goal of the protagonist is). The bulk of the film involves action packed and emotionally charged events which come to a climax which promptly resolves to the conclusion of the 4th part of the series.

I like Star Wars enough, it is a very fundamental example of the archetypal story involving the heroic journey. At the time, the special effects were ground breaking and the notion of space travel was a hot topic in pop culture, hence why the film did so well.

Story/Star Wars Prezi

2010-10-28T19:42:00.000-07:00

Story/Star Wars on Prezi

2010-10-28T17:55:00.000-07:00

Here are some links relating to Star Wars--the franchise, the story. If you include these in your post (or add a new one if you've done it already), I'll give you a tiny bit of extra credit. :) ~Prof. Jenn

http://binarybonsai.com/2009/06/20/george-lucas-maker-of-films-1971/

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/08/12/star-wars-was-born-a-long-time-ago-but-not-all-that-far-far-away-in-1972-filmmakers-george-lucas-and-gary-kurtz-wer/

http://bonzuko.com/?p=2698

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/21-87_how_arthur_lipsett_influenced_george_lucass_thx-1138/

Star Wars

2010-10-28T14:42:00.000-07:00

I have to be completely honest with all of you. I tried very hard to like this movie, and I have to say I failed. I struggled to keep my eyes open past the halfway point. Needless to say I am not a fan of Star Wars, it has never been my favorite genre (sci-fi, fantasy), but it was nice to finally say “yes I’ve seen that movie, and no I did not think it was that incredible.” But I can see why this movie was chosen for the story section in our textbooks.

The story started before any character was introduced to us on the screen with the famous “In a galaxy far, far away.” That part of the introduction gave us viewers a good sense of background on what was going on in the world. Without that background knowledge the viewer would be somewhat lost in the opening scene because the action starts right away. We are first introduced to the two characters R2D2 and the other droid. I immediately determined them to be important characters in the storyline because they had most of the speaking parts. R2D2 just whistled and beeped, but we can still tell that he’s important because of his secret encounter with Princess Laya.

I was glad that the chapter addressed the differences between story any plot. I’ve never been able to address the two words as separate things, and always kind of thought that there was no difference. The textbook defines story as “the general subject matter, the raw materials of a dramatic action in chronological sequence.” Plot is defined as “the implied author’s point of view as well as the structuring of the scenes into an aesthetic pattern.” So in my own words, story to me would be what the true events are, and plot would be how those events are told throughout the story. If I’m completely off on this, call me out on it.

Star Wars was a movie that told the story of multiple characters: where they came from, their background, what their situation was. The scenes seemed structured to focus on each character, and as the story progressed, you see these characters all come together for the climatic events. You knew at the beginning that at some point in the movie, all these characters would end up having a relationship with one another, you just weren’t sure what kind of relationship.

The textbook introduced the Classical Paradigm, which is said to have three acts in a screenplay. I would say the first act of Star Wars was the introduction of all the characters and their intentions. I would say the second act (confrontation) began roughly when Princess Laya’s planet was destroyed. That act extended to the climax of the story where the main battle begins. The third act (resolution) would be when the death star is destroyed.

Star Wars was a great movie for this chapter, but I doubt I’ll be revisiting this classic any time soon.

Star Wars+Story

2010-10-27T14:24:00.001-07:00

I liked the movie this week, but I get so lost with them. I am one of those people that do not understand the order of the star wars movies, even though I have had it explained to me over and over. I just do not get it. So I was confused about some stuff, I guess it doesn't help that I have only seen like two. Last year, for music class, I had to go see a performance and I saw Star Wars: the musical journey. I had no clue what was going on but it was fun to see everyone dressed up, and of course the music was awesome.

As for Story:

The book talks about being active in the story and engaged in the film. There is nothing better than a movie where the story wraps you up in it. Shutter Island, to me, is a great example of being a part of the story. The entire time I am thinking; the movie is always twisting the story, when I think I finally have it all figured out. I love this type of movie, but I can see why others wouldn't because some do not want to have to think while watching a movie.

Judging a film based off its name: I do this with almost every movie. For A New Hope, obviously I was expecting a happy ending. If it hadn't been one, I probably would not of liked the movie, cause it would of been misleading. This is true with every movie I think.

The narrative structure discussed in the text is what I have learned since I was little for writing or reading, I did not realize it was the same for movies. Obviously, it works exactly the same. The Classical Paradigm played a large part in this film. Each scene built up to the climax. An example was just the tension in each fight up to the final fight between Obi and Darth. Another example is Luke's journey. He starts off as a farmer, and with each scene he is learning more and more to become a Jedi.

The four main movie genre cycles (p. 359): 1) Primitive, 2) classical, 3) revisionist, 4) parodic are important. I think this film is a great example of a film moving through the stages. It starts off as a basic good vs. evil. (Primitive) Then the connections between characters add more balance, and richness. (classical). With the new Star Wars films, everything is much more complex stylistically. And of course the twist where Darth is Luke's father is a main ironic foil. (Revisionist) And we can not forget all the parodies surrounding Star Wars. (Parodic).

Story - Star Wars

2010-10-24T09:50:00.000-07:00

Even though this is probably about the 15th time I've seen A New Hope it still never fails to entertain. I would like to be the first to point out that the film choices seem to be swayed slightly on the side of Harrison Ford though! All jokes aside great, classic movie of the Science Fiction genre. Enduring with the best of them, Star Wars follows the classic allegory of good vs evil. It's actually written directly into the context of the story with the paralleling dark side of the force. This film also cotains an enduring social commentary about the struggle of a small but dedicated political resistance against a massive and all consuming unwanted force.

Sticking with the topic of genres we can definately see based off the Star Wars series alone that science fiction has for a long time been classified in the fourth cycle of parody. Major motion pictures such as Space Balls and countless references of the Star Wars franchise have dominated American culture for years. Star Wars has been mocked in television shows, especially Family Guy, which has not only done this in episode clips, but also produced 2 full legth kcarktoon films based entirely off the Star Wars story line. They say that mockery is the ultimate form of flattery, and in this case I believe that is the intent.

Working backwards the opening exposition scene for all the Star Wars films sets the stage for the feeling and purpose of the film. It's epic, complex, and powerful and those feelings are asserted from the beggining credits. The view is the never-ending vastness of space coupled with the booming of trumpets and drums which illustrates the grandness of the upcoming film.

Acting/Drama/Fight Club Presentation

2010-10-22T19:39:00.000-07:00

Broken Links

2010-10-22T19:34:00.000-07:00

Here are the broken links from the Acting/Drama/Fight Club prezi:

Behind the Scenes Gun Shot
Another Behind the Scenes

There are plenty more "making of" bits on YouTube, if you're interested. :)

~Prof Jenn

10/15 - Fight Club/Acting & Drama

2010-10-22T12:07:00.000-07:00

It was cool seeing Fight Club again. It had been awhile since I’d watched it but I think it will be around for awhile. It is kind of a dark film, I remember when we first watched it when it came out and after the movie one of my friends just looked at us in awe, completely perplexed and was like “that was so crazy, I feel like killing you guys,” he was just joking of course just letting us know how much the movie had racked his brain but I knew where he was coming from, the movie ended and you were completely blown away. It was definitely one of those movies we had to watch a few times after. That final shot at the end when the buildings fall and The Pixies song “Where Is My Mind” starts playing is especially epic still. I think that song has been used in a few other films since.

Anyways from an acting standpoint you have to tip your hat to every actor in the movie. Of course you have some Star System power going on with Brad Pitt and Edward Norton but even the smallest roles were acted perfectly. One scene I really noticed this was the scene with the convenience store clerk who’s got the gun to the back of his head, “Rupert.” It is this really small part but you can hardly tell that it is even being acted it seems so real. There were many other scenes in the movie like this but that one really jumps out. I also like that part when the guy is spraying water on the priest walking down the sidewalk. That was also another example of a small part but good acting.

The reading was interesting. It was cool to get some insight into the technique of some of my favorite actors. De Niro’s take on not “chasing an illusion” or over-romanticizing a role and his approach was interesting to read. I agree that Phillip Seymour Hoffman is an amazingly versatile actor. I really like his role in “Punch-Drunk-Love” too. Although you have a lot of directors like Antonioni or Hitchcock that use their actors more as part of the composition or juxtaposition with the setting to create a mood or state I agree that to create a more realistic effect you have to rely more and more on the skill of the actor. Fight Club is a fine example of this. In drama it is more important to create a “magic” than realism. I thought this showed certainly in Henry V and Amadeus, even The Matrix to name a few that we’ve seen in class. Overall, a great movie and interesting chapters.

Fight Club. Acting and Drama

2010-10-22T11:12:00.000-07:00

Fight Club was a great movie that fit both chapters.

The movie complex plot makes it a film that you could watch over and over again. The whole mental state and separate personality makes the plot interesting and add to the drama. I did not realize how much can add to drama until reading the chapter. The setting of the movie was great. It along with the shots and zooming make it dramatic. The makeup of all the blood and cuts was done very well, it added realism to fighting. I think that the director let the actors act but still had some say on how things were done knowing that Chuck Palahniuk wrote a book.

As far as acting goes Brat Pitt and Edward Norton could have not been replaced as the main cast of the movie. Their extreme form of expressionistic acting makes the whole plot and movie seem so realistic. The violence was very dramatic but it worked out with the overall message of the movie. Edward Norton did a great job with all the multiple personalities and you defiantly got to know how loony he was with the scene when he shot himself. The fighting scene had to take some pretty good acting skills as well! I couldn't imagine having to pretend that I am getting the crap beat of me and make it seem real!

I am sure that after seeing the movie a couple times there was still way more bigger concepts that I will not grasp. The psychology of the film is so complex but its fun to watch a movie and try to figure out what's going on!

2010-10-22T10:55:00.001-07:00

The settings in fight club are completely stunning. I have seen this movie so many times and it remains one of my favorites to watch. I feel like I am in the rooms these characters exist in. I think it is the visceral quality of the film making that accomplishes this quality of putting the viewer directly in the scene. The quality of how everything is set up in this movie works towards putting you directly in the room the scenes are taking place in.

I also feel like the grittiness of the set design has a large part in how this movie affects you as a viewer. The movie starts with an extreme zoom out from the pores of Edward Norton’s face. This is too close for comfort to me and that theme runs through the setup of the entire movie. The production design is so grimy it makes you uncomfortable; this may be the most effective execution of set design and plot intertwined in a movie period.

Acting/ Fight Club

2010-10-22T10:54:00.000-07:00

Hahah well I regret admitting I saw this film when i was far too young to understand many ideas in this movie. I watched it the summer before I went into 6th grade... I don't remember what I picked up on back then but I'm sure it wasn't much. Since then I thinkI have probably seen this movie more than any other movie in my life (maybe besides Donnie Darko). I couldn't care less about fighting or rebelling against the ordinary life, rather it was the acting and clever script that compelled me to watch this film over and over and over. haha... Obviously Brad Pitt is who we want to look at but I believe that Edward Norton was the harder and more interesting role to act.

Edward Norton puts the audience in his shoes and really draws a connection with the viewers. He is a pathetic man that only feels emotion when he goes to group therapy where others are suffering. Yet, the audience doesn't look down on Norton, we sympathize. When Marla shoes up smoking, like Norton, the audience feels an annoyance with her presence. Only with amazing acting can an aduience follow the movie with the same emotions as the actor. On the other side, when we find out that Edward Norton is Tyler Durden, the audience imidiately has sympathy for Marla. Helena Bonham Carter plays an excellent cray lady. I love her. Her acting in the
film is phenomenal. I lover when she is crossing the traffic filled street, ignoring the speeding incoming cars. It's no surprise she is with Tim Burton.

The reading really shocked me when it said that before 1910 movies used to not incluse actors names in the movie credits... who made the movie possible?? Haha maybe I agree that some actors should be left out for their horrible performance, but I can't imagine ignoring the talent of good actors. I also wonder how many actors make it to the "majors". I believe that most English actors are incredible and EARN the right to be in movies. In america, I feel that if you look good enough, why not put you in a movie?? (hinting at Megan Fox...awful).I don't like how movies have recently been casting these "actors" and making them seem like God when actually amazing actors who may not look as pleasing, are less recognized. Grrrr

Fight Club

2010-10-22T10:45:00.000-07:00

Even just the thought of this movie makes me smile. When it first came out, my brother and his friends were obsessed with it and even formed their own "fight club." They made their own rules, put on makeup, and took hilarious polaroids of each other looking like they beat the crap out of each other. I never understood it when I was younger, but the more I watched it as I got older, I can definitely understand and appreciate the love my brother and his friends had for this movie. And if I may add, Brad Pitt looks daaamn good in this movie. Which definitely doesn't hurt my enjoyment :)

Fight Club was definitely a fantastic choice to illustrate acting and drama. As the book says, "casting a movie is almost an art in itself." Fight Club is a great example of this. Casting can make or break a movie, and I can not think of any other actors who would have played the main parts nearly as well as Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and Helena Carter. When I read that "many filmmakers believe that casting is so integral to character, they don't even begin working on a script until they know who's playing the major roles," I couldn't help but wonder if that's what happened with this movie. I wouldn't be remotely surprised if when deciding to make a film based on Chuck Palahniuk's novel, Jim Uhls already had Pitt and Norton in his mind.

Although there are many, many examples of great acting in this movie, I think that the most impressive acting abilities come through the actors' fighting. Sometimes when I'm watching a movie or television, I will concentrate on the fact that they actors are in fact acting, and then it'll be very obvious to me that what I'm watching is fake. In Fight Club, however, it couldn't seem fake to me no matter how hard I think about it. The fight seems are eerily realistic and even disturbing because they seem so real. The scene that sticks out the most to me is when Edward Norton is beating himself up in his boss's office. I can't imagine how difficult that scene must have been and he did it seamlessly. I wonder if that took a lot of training..

Fight Club was also a great example of drama. As the reading says, setting is very important in a film. This movie definitely uses setting to portray a lot to the audience. Throughout the movie, it is almost always gray and drab, putting the viewers in the appropriate mood that the director is trying to get across. The house where they live is also the perfect location for this dark, dramatic movie. It is dark, falling apart, wet, and depressing.. yet there is something beautiful about it. The makeup in this movie was also flawless. Never once did I doubt that all of those cuts and bruises were real. The most shocking and impressive makeup, I think, is Jared Leto's after Edward Norton beats him up. It's actually hard to look at him because his makeup is done so well.

I could go on and on about this movie and how every aspect of it impresses me, but those few things are what stood out to me the most. The reading also helped me understand and appreciate this amazing film even more. Now I think it's time that I read the book. Palahniuk is definitely one of my favorite authors to read!

Fight Club

2010-10-22T10:26:00.000-07:00

Fight club can be hard to understand at first which is why it needs to be followed carefully. it has many details which can easily be missed.The movie was a little confusing for me at first but then i was surprised.

Casting is really difficult in a film as it cannot be missed otherwise difficulties could arrive. The acting in a film is also very critical and important and casting is associated with this.

This movie had a good cast and i guess Bratt Pitt was a good fit for this role.Norton was also. Good acting and not too bad fight scenes.

Edward norton had a very dificult job to play different personalities but he managed to do a good job.

2010-10-22T10:09:00.001-07:00

Fight Club
When I first saw this movie I thought it was the best movie of its kind. The idea of involving multiple personalities into the main characters was genius. When I saw the ending for the first time it was so surprised and upset that I couldn’t rewind the movie. I wanted to go back and see all the signs I had missed. I wanted to figure it out and I was so upset that I couldn’t go back. I saw it again a few days later to see if can catch the clues and tips to end of the movie. I ended up seeing the movie about 3 three times in 10 days. I liked to so much and so excited that I finally understood the plot. Honestly, this movie has made me look at all the movies I had seen after in a manner in which I look forward to things. I don’t sit there an guess but I think made me look forward to things I may not be expecting.

The acting is w entirely things of its own. All movies have acting and I think this movie had very good acting. To be honest, I felt Pitt’s character helped out a lot in the sense that he was in more than half the movie and he was acting out Norton’s character. Only in the end did we see that Norton was actually playing two characters. To me the acting was done was better him not knowing that he was having sex with the girl and not Pitt. Being able to play like things were unreal and not knowing what was going on was awesome; Which made sense with the reading when it talked about a stage actor has to do more to get their character across to the audience. All the recruits also had a significant place in the movie and did also act out very well. I think some of their acting was just as good as Norton’s and Pitt’s.

Fight Club

2010-10-22T10:03:00.000-07:00

Although I had never seen Fight Club before class, I had read the book by Chuck Palahniuk and thought it was great. I usually try not to see the movie versions of good books I have read simply because they tend to fall flat for me. I will have to say I thought the book was better than the film but I liked the movie for what it was. It gave me a really interesting visual with the fact Edward Norton was actually sharing the screen with his “alter ego” type character played by Brad Pitt. It’s a lot easier to connect the dots when you’re actually seeing him transform into this completely different person rather than when reading and you tend to forget about his alter ego and connect him to both people at the same time. (if that makes sense)

Like a couple other of my classmates I found the reading section about type casting really interesting. I would think it would be especially harder to select a cast based on a novel because of the pressure you receive from the readers and their individual perceptions of who they imagine would fit the role. Look at the Twilight films for example, amazing books, crappy movies. Which I feel is because of mainly the awkward, lacking cast. I think it was bold to have Brad Pitt star in this movie because of his background in more lighthearted action films but he fit the park surprisingly well. Norton was equally if not more, fitted exactly for the part. In the beginning of the film Norton played an awkward insomniac business man and slowly transformed into this dark character living this completely alter life.

I really love how there’s a deep portrayed in this film that sets it apart from so many movies (and books) I’ve seen/read. Did anyone else notice that after every fight Jack has he becomes more like Tyler? I feel as though the fight scenes were probably the most significant scenes in the entire movie because they stepping stones in Jacks fight to become someone new, someone like Tyler. During every fight I got the feeling that Jacks fear about his life disappears creating this almost revolution for him into becoming someone he’s unconsciously longed to be. Fight Club is a brilliant book and remains one of my favorites, and although I was skeptical the movie was pretty good too.

Fight Club

2010-10-22T09:39:00.000-07:00

After watching Fight Club and paying strong attention to acting and the detail used in the acting to help make the movie really shows you how great acting can create the storyline of a movie. Edward Norton is an amazing actor, and I believe that because of his performance people fell in love with this movie. The fact is that the plot of the movie is based of off Norton acting as two people and confusing everyone, including himself. It must be extremly difficult to act as one person but really be playing two peole in the movie.

Norton plays his role extremely well in Fight Club. My favorite scene is the scene where he shoots himself in the head to kill his alternate personality. The whole argument before he actually shoots himself helps you see how crazy he actually is. He is sitting there arguing with himself for a good five minutes and you can see the two personality switching inside him throughout the scene. I also like when he ahs the realization that he is actually both people and it flashes back the some key moments in the movie, and he has to replay the scene but only with himself. He reacts out each scene that he was in with Brad Pitt, but instead films them alone, and tries to recreate what happens with one person instead of two.

After watching Fight Club I gained a new respect for acting, and the difficulties actors mus go through to make the movie special. Acting is very crucial to every movie and is used to generally create the mood and outline of every sing movie. Because of the good acting in Fight Club, the plot twist was kept so secret through the entire movie, so that when it happened it left the audience in shock. Acting is a special talent and when done right can create magic on the big screen.

Fight Club

2010-10-22T02:17:00.000-07:00

I've seen Fight Club many times, and it remains to be one of those movies that doesn't seem to get old. I think the acting in this movie is somewhat unique. It kind of has to be given the story line of the film. One of the things I like most about Norton's performance is how well he changes into Tyler Durden. He begins the transition almost immediately after meeting Brad Pitt's character. Before Brad Pitt is even introduced, Norton is pretty much your average joe (minus his addiction to various group therapy meetings). But after meeting Tyler Durden or his split personality, he essentially starts to become himself. One thing I've always noticed is at first, when they're both in the bar and Brad Pitt offers Norton a cigarette, He declines and says that he doesn't smoke. But as time progresses, we see that Norton picks up smoking along with other characteristics of Brad Pitt.

In the "Settings" section of the reading, I thought of the house that Pitt and Norton both lived in and how it reflected Tyler Durden in general. At first it seems fitting for Brad Pitt to live their but not for Norton's character. But as time goes on, Norton's character even says that after a short period of time, it became home to him and he didn't notice the flaws in the house that he did at first. In that same section, costumes were talked about as well. When we first meet Tyler Durden, he's dressed quite differently than Norton's character, but at the time, their dress reflects who they are very well at that point. In the beginning, Norton is dresse pretty plainly. Usually in his business attire or other dull clothing. Tyler durden is dressed more vibrantly and he sticks out more. I think the way that Norton begins to dress later on in the film almost foreshadows how he is becoming Tyler Durden. A lot of the time he still wears his work clothes but doens't wear a tie or button his shirt. He's still his "old self" but a noticeable change is occuring.

I'm very glad we watched this movie because I've always been a big fan. Reading the chapters definitely opened my eyes to things I'd never thought about in Fight Club and tons of other movies as well.