Pish Posh
Not your mama's blog...unless your mom is Samuel L. Jackson
I was a little intrigued by our class discussion based on this AV Club article: http://www.avclub.com/articles/what-is-morally-offlimits-in-pop-culture,57054/
We talked a bit about how cartoons tend to get away with more innuendo than live-action shows, which I definitely agree with. Growing up, I wasn’t allowed to watch the Simpsons, or Ren and Stimpy, because of their content. Today, if I tried to watch an episode of Family Guy or South Park in the living room of my very conservative mother’s home, I would definitely get the stank eye. I’m not sure why cartoons appear to be more racy than other television shows, but I theorize it could be because we don’t view cartoons as real people. Perhaps it’s more palpable for us to watch a cartoon character do or say something taboo, than to watch an actual human being do or say something controversial? Something to think on, I suppose.
We were instructed to watch an episode of a soap opera for class today, and I chose the most recent episode of General Hospital, which can be found here if you want to watch it for free: http://abc.go.com/watch/general-hospital/SH559056/VD55186891/general-hospital-328
Here are my thoughts on the episode, and most soap operas in general. I’ve always had a bad relationship with this genre, because my sister watched a lot of these shows when I was younger, and all I wanted to watch was Nickelodeon…so I’ve never been one of those females who absolutely needed to catch up on my daily soaps. Due to this distaste in soap operas, I’ve never really watched a full episode on my own, so I went into this assignment completely blind.
I’m still not a fan of soap operas, I found the events to be scattered, and I get the idea that I would need to watch several episodes before I would become fully aware of all the story lines involved. I did find it interesting, however, that the acting wasn’t altogether bad. I think the stereotypical cheesy aspects of soap operas are mostly found in the music, and the uber-dramatized close-ups of an actor’s face when they make a discovery of some sort.
I also found it interesting that a good bit of non-soap opera dramas share some of the same qualities. Grey’s Anatomy has a lot of the same types of situations as GH… I think it’s the way it’s edited and promoted that makes it not a soap opera…which is something for me to ponder as I watch the next episode of Grey’s Anatomy.
We watched Quiet City in class today, which is an independent film style known as “mumblecore.” It’s honestly difficult for me to find anything interesting about the film, which is ok, because I don’t have to like everything I see. I can appreciate the realism of the film to an extent (though I can’t fathom a young girl leaving a subway station with a complete stranger, for any reason! What the crap?), but I just can’t make myself care about these characters. It’s possible to find something in each of the main characters for me to relate to, but nothing profound happened through the entire film, there was absolutely no connection to the story for me. I don’t want to watch “a day in the life” of two random people. It would be different if those people were navigating issues throughout the film, but they basically just flirted and went about their daily activities…and I lost interest quickly. But that’s just me, I’m sure there are a ton of people who really appreciate this art form, and maybe if I understood more about the genre, I would feel differently.
Last week in class, we discussed whether or not the internet has been beneficial or detrimental to the film industry, based on some articles by the AV club.
Here’s what I concluded:
Essentially, the internet has been beneficial in offering us many different ways of watching films we would otherwise not have access to. Programs like Netflix and Hulu make it easy to watch our favorite movies and TV shows at the click of a mouse.
Additionally, we gain access to any sort of film review we would want to peruse before viewing a movie still in theaters.
Here’s the catch 22, though. The internet also provides an opportunity for film piracy, I can easily download just about any movie or TV show in a matter of minutes…for free (I don’t believe in doing that, by the way).
To play devil’s advocate against the argument that we can find film reviews from many “credible” sources, let’s also consider the millions of novices “reviewing” films on their homemade blogs. Sure we can decide for ourselves who’s credible and who’s not, but the fact remains that we have to sift through a lot of nonsense to get to any sort of credible sources for a film review.
So I suppose at the end of the day, it’s up to us to decide whether or not internet has helped or burdened the film and television industry. There are pros and cons on both sides, and honestly, we can’t do anything about it now…internet is never going away, and we will never be able to police what people say about movies and television shows -and why would we want to? Freedom of speech is definitely at play here. It’s up to us to do the research for ourselves, and form our own opinions based on our own experiences.
Seriously? B**** can do anything…true, this isn’t actually Meryl Streep, but I think the writers for SNL were really onto something when they wrote this sketch. Meryl Streep has become somewhat of an icon in case no one’s noticed. But here’s the deal…
Fact: Meryl Streep is a fantastic actress.
Fact: If you’re at a party full of pretentious movie buffs, especially females, you’ll likely hear “Oh my god, Meryl Streep is my queen!” 15+ times in a single conversation.
But does Meryl deserve this year’s best actress Oscar based on her past acting credits? No…I don’t think so, but I do believe that’s exactly what happened this year.
Let me start off by saying I’m pretty indifferent toward Meryl. I think she’s great in most every role she’s in, but I also think people go a little overboard with her acting merits. She’s great, no doubt, but there are at least a handful of her peers who I believe deserve just as much credit for their skill, if not more in some cases.
I knew when I watched the Oscars this past Sunday that she would win this year. Why? Well, the woman has been nominated 17 times, and has only won twice in her career. I really feel as thought the Academy was like “well, it’s time…” and that’s how it happened. I saw the Iron Lady, I wasn’t that impressed. It was a strong enough film, I suppose, but I’m having a hard time believing Streep’s personality was that far from Margaret Thatcher’s that she had to pull acting skills from deep down in her bag of tricks in order to pull it off…Rooney Mara, however, went through a lot more, including actual physical transformation, to deliver her version of Lisbeth Salandar on the big screen.
Many disagree with me on this, but I truly feel Rooney Mara was robbed this year. Sorry, Streep fans, I cannot tell a lie. Meryl is amazing, but dear god, Rooney killed it this year.
Now that we’ve covered my feelings on this year’s best actress award…can we talk about Zach Galifianakis and Will Ferrell’s cymbalic entrance (see what I did there? Forget I said that…please…)
I am so confused…
I have a Netflix account, and it always amuses with its suggested genres based on genres I tend to frequent. My top four are: Violent Gangster Action Thrillers, Visually Striking Exciting Foreign Movies, 80s Quirky Crime Dark Comedies, and Classic Witty Musicals…what? If you were to ask me what my favorite genres are, I doubt very seriously I would naturally spout off with whatever it is Netflix thinks I’m watching.
Where do we even get this idea of “genre?” The article we read for my film class says genre typically means “a literary form with certain conventions and patterns that, through repetition, have become so familiar that readers expect similar elements in works of the same type.” When applied to film, we throw general categories around all the time.
“hey, whatcha feel like watchin’ tonight?”
“I don’t know, a comedy?”
It would feel a little out of place to say
“I’m in the mood for a witty 80s crime film.”
But genres aren’t as black and white as we like to make them out to be. As the article we read states, even the basic western can be broken up into sub-genres (western comedy, western historical drama, western musical, etc…).
Personally, I don’t like to label much of anything, but in the interest of being able to successfully describe a film to a friend, we have to buy into the labeling, and try to figure out what the label should be as best as we can.
In reading this article, I realized genres are a-plenty, and I can’t freak out about not being able to correctly identify a film with fifteen different combined genres in casual conversation. I do, however, need to be able to identify a film genre if ever I’m writing an academic review on it. I can’t compare a John Wayne western to Blazing Saddles if I’m ignorant enough to lump them in the same genre.
Netflix is ignorant to lump them in the same genre, and that’s why the girl in the photo above is crying.
We recently watched City Lights in my film class, and as you might have read in my post prior to this one, I really enjoyed the silent film. We were instructed to read a few articles about the movie, and I found the Ebert article to be most interesting. Here’s a link to the article, read it, if you haven’t already: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19971221/REVIEWS08/401010310/1023
Of the three articles we were instructed to read, I found this one most interesting, essentially because we know Roger Ebert as a noted film critic. Obviously he wasn’t around when this movie first hit theaters, so it was interesting to hear the opinions of someone who critiques so many modern-day films give his opinion of an old silent film classic.
He gives Chaplin his dues throughout the article, and makes many poignant statements, however the most memorable portion of the article is when he describes Chaplin’s reception at the Piazza San Marco after his film was shown. Chaplin, not necessarily known for spoken words, simply walked out into the audience, took a bow, and dismissed himself. The audience clapped for what must have seemed like forever. In a time where silent films were starting to become a thing of the past (Ebert notes how “talkies” had been around for about 3 years when City Lights made it’s debut) an audience was so captivated by Chaplin’s work that he needed only bow, and the audience cheered on for several minutes.
Our instructor mentioned that Chaplin received an honorary Oscar well into his elderly years, and was able to make a speech in response. Here is the clip, it’s worth a view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Pl-qvA1X8
I literally got chills as Chaplin steps forward with tears in his eyes to receive his honorary Oscar. How amazing it must have felt to stand on a stage in front of the world, and receive validation of such an amazing history of work. Charlie Chaplin made history with his life, and his peers took notice. I can’t imagine what film would have been like without his contributions to the art.
We recently watched Charlie Chaplin’s City Lights in my film class, and honestly, I was not excited about it at all. The Artist has been making a big splash lately, and though most of my friends have seen it (and loved it), I just haven’t been able to make myself watch a silent movie…I guess I’ve just assumed that movies without spoken words would be boring. This is the mindset I was in when we started watching the movie, and I have to say, it completely flipped my views on silent movies.
Within minutes I found myself fixed on the screen, watching the love-able tramp make his way through the big city; wondering if he would get the girl in the end. I completely forgot the movie didn’t have dialogue; it just didn’t matter to me anymore.
***SPOILER***
In the final moments of the movie, when the flower girl sees the tramp for the first time, and chooses to accept him for who he is, I actually cried a little. Suddenly I realized Chaplin was able to command my attention, and my affection, without saying a single word. I’ve seen many movies with dialogue that weren’t able to captivate my attention the way this film did, and I now possess a sincere appreciation for silent films. Charlie Chaplin has stolen my heart.
I found this article to be very interesting, in that I’ve learned to appreciate film editing as an “actor” of its own sort. True that films would not be the same without flesh-and-bone actors to actually act out the scenes that make the movie, however, Bazin’s article causes me to see how elements such as music and montage hold just as much importance.
Bazin discusses how many thought the introduction of sound to cinema would be a “surrender to chaos;” reasoning that the lack of sound forced the audience to focus on the emotions in the scene, and would accommodate the “exquisite embarrassment” often found in silence. However, film companies started incorporating sound, and discovered how powerful it is in moving an audience.
In a similar manner, use of montage was discovered to pull focus in one area of emotional logic. Scenes are cut down and pasted next to one another for the sole purpose of stirring specific thoughts and emotions in the viewer; not unlike certain acting techniques incorporated in different styles of theatre.
Of course we understand theatre also has elements that stir emotion, but we have little control over how the audience perceives each element. In film, at least we are more capable of pulling focus to a single screen, especially with use of montage, and there’s a much greater chance that less of these elements are lost on the audience.
In genres such as Realism, it is sometimes harder to keep an audience’s attention from the stage, but using cinematic elements to pull all focus to one area supports the realism in the scene in ways that keeps an audience on board.
youretearingmacandmeapartlisa:
After reading Elizabeth Cowan’s blog’s tagline, I felt the need to post this. You’re welcome ;)
Like I said, not your mama’s blog ;)
