‘Bowling for Columbine’ (Moore, 2002)
Voice-over is used by Moore to set the scene of America as a gun-loving nation – expository documentary elements. Moore likes to engage with the subjects he is talking to. He is often seen on camera talking. He is the one who goes and signs up with the bank to get a free gun – interactive documentary elements. There is a montage edit of examples of how American’s love guns and Moore’s personal history with guns. This sets the scene as well in an interactive way.
The montage elements of the documentary are to show realism of how guns are viewed in America. The voice-over and interviews are also used to show realiam as it sets the scene for America in the 90’s/2000’s. Moore is a very realistic documentarist.
I think Moore is using this montage edit to send a message that America might have a gun problem, and he is asking, why?
Michael Moore likes to get very personal with his films by talking with the subjects. He is often on screen and the one asking questions. This is because his documentaries is him exploring issues in America.
The difference between this film and a mainstream fiction feature is the narration explaining the world. It is rare for a film to have a narration. And if they do, it is common for it to be at the beginning for exposition and then at the end. The Fault in Our Stars is an exception to the rule with Hazel’s thoughts being throughout the film, like how Moore uses narration to guide the film.
News programs will more focus on the events. So, during Columbine, they would have exclusively focused on the shooting and with Parkland, the events of the students fighting for gun control. Moore more focuses on why America is like this and why no one was willing to change.
Digital filmmaking has allowed Michael Moore to not take a while to get ready to talk to someone. He can just press play and go into an interrogation. This means that his subjects can’t escape.

‘Divorce: Iranian Style’ (Longinotto, 1998)
Voice-over is used to tell the audience what they are witnessing – expository documentary elements. Most of the footage just lets the recording play out with minimal cuts – observational documentary. Occasionally, Longinotto will asks question but just for context – interactive.
As for the most part, this documentary uses observational documentary techniques like minimal editing to show the audience what is happening. This makes it a realistic as we are not being deceived by the editing.
Longinotto is using minimal editing to show the audience the gender bias in Iran when it comes to divorce.
Longinotto has hardly any interaction between herself and the subjects of the documentary. The only time she will is to ask the occasional question to ask what is happening.
The difference between this film and a mainstream fiction feature is the lack of structure to the opening. There is no scene establishing the setting through dialogue, Longinotto simply tells the audience where they are and there is not an individual main set of characters.
News programs will focus on big things like war, not divorce in Iran. This subject is only a small part of a larger issue surrounding women’s rights in Iran.
Digital Filmmaking has allowed people like Longinotto go to places like Iran and document what it is like out there with ease. It has made people more aware of what it is like in other countries that wouldn’t be as documented.

Plan for script:

Concepts:

Satanism

Abduction

Buried alive

Maddison – main girl

Ethel and Harrison lead satanists

Married couple

Sacrifice a girl

Character profiles:

Maddison – 5”10, shoulder length unnatural blonde hair, bright blue eyes, in her work uniform, blue nurse outfit, works at a hospital, 2AM when she gets home from work, optimistic, determined, intelligent, has medical expertise as she is training to become a doctor.

Ethel – 5”6, wife to Harrison. Satanist. 56 years old, crooked teeth popping out of her lips. Wearing a black and red robe, matching to Harrison. Scraggly brown hair with grey roots. A mole on her face, deep wrinkles, looks like carving in her face, old healed scars on her face, blood dripping from her mouth

Harrison – 6”3, husband to Ethel. Satanist. 60 years old, grey/white hair, matching outfit to Ethel, thin angry lips, thick low long grey eyebrows.

Isabelle – 5”7, gets killed by Harrison. Long messy matted ginger hair, fresh scars on her face, dry lips, weak, bruises across her body, clothes are ripped, not much of them left.

Story outline:

Maddison is buried alive at the end when she nearly escapes

Neighbour of Satanists – she hears screaming and unsettling cackling laughter

Investigates noise

Sees a satantical sacrifice through back window

Tried to call police but phone is dead

Ethel and Harrison see Madison through the window and try to find where she is

Maddison trips over a water pipe as she tries to run back to her house- creates loads of noise

Hurt her ankle so is now limping

She hears someone shouting for help from the open garage at the front of the house

She enters the garage to find a crying woman covered in blood stuck in a locker

Maddison finds bolt cutters and breaks open the locker freeing the woman

She says she knows what’s going on- as she starts explaining she is in the head

Maddison runs inside the house through the garage to avoid Harrison

Limps into the kitchen to try and find a weapon

Ethel jumps out of nowhere and slashes Maddison’s arm with a hunting knife

Maddison throws a potted plant at Ethels head leaving her dazed and confused

Maddison tries to leave through the back garden door, all the doors are locked and barricaded shut

Maddison runs upstairs and locks herself in the bathroom

She smashes the mirror with a brick candle holder, uses the glass as a weapon.

Maddison rips the rest of her sleeve off where the slash is and wraps it around the glass she she can use it as a weapon

Ethel and Harrison are taunting her outside the bathroom door, they know she can’t escape out the bathroom because of her injuries

Maddison uses iodine on her stab wound in her stomach and keeps pressure I’m it with a bathroom towel

Maddison has one hand keeping pressure on the wound and the other carrying the shattered glass weapon.

Ethel and Harrison can be heard downstairs so Maddison sneaks out the bathroom and goes downstairs.

Ethel goes outside but Harrison is in the living room with his back to the entrance from the hall way

Maddison creeps up behind him and stabs him in the neck letting him bleed out on the floor

She hears satanic whispering surround her talking to her as she realises she killed Harrison in the middle of a satanic circle made out of someone’s blood

Maddison runs away from the noise after finding the key to the back garden door in his pocket

She unlocks the door and starts to run out

Ethel comes out of the corner and stabs Maddison in the stomach killing her

POV shot from Maddison of eternity standing over her

She offers her eternal life if she joins satan

Maddison accepts as she can still hear the whisperings getting louder as she bleeds out

Ethel than carries Maddison’s body over shoulder and throws her into a deep dug out gravehole

Ethel burries Maddison alive – while telling her she has the gift of eternal life through Satan

Maddison will forever be buried alive

script-abduction-placement-name.docx

House of Flying Daggers Article Questions

 

How might you describe Zhang Yimou’s visual style or aesthetic?

Zhang Yimou likes the have colour combination. He matches the character’s costumes to the scenery for aesthetically pleasing films. Like del Toro, he also uses colours to symbolise meaning like how red is used to symbolise the passion Jin and Mei have.

 

What is significant about Zhang as a Chinese filmmaker, the themes of House of Flying Daggers and its production context (contemporary Chinese Film Industry)?

Zhang is a household name in China because of how he directed the opening and closing ceremonies for the Beijing Olympics. This is why he is significant in Chinese culture. His 2004 film ‘House of Flying Daggers’ explores themes of defeating authority. The house are rebels, going against the government. This shows how the communist propaganda found in Chinese films as it shows the Communists were in the right to overthrow the government as people had been doing it for ages apparently. There is also a motif of deceptions present in the film as majority of the characters lie about who they were – nothing is as it appears initially.

 

What commons criticisms are there of the film? What are seen as it’s strengths?

A criticism of the film is that it is communist propaganda. The film tells the story of rebels taking from the rich and giving back to the poor. They are distributing the wealth, which is one of the principles of Communism. People could complain that Zhang has “sold out”, especially since his earlier films were censored by China. This is similar to his previous film ‘Hero’ which had a final speech talking about how the ‘One China’ policy is good. But the film itself had some great scenes. The echo game scene was beautifully shot due to the mix of dance of wuxia and the silence is really tense.

 

How are men and woman represented in the film?

In ‘House of Flying Daggers’, the first half of the film shows men as superior. Only men are seen in the military, which happened in China, hence why Mulan was a big deal. The Peony Pavilion is a brothel and where we first see woman. This shows issues with culture and how in the past, woman were treated like sex objects, which is bad. But Zhang challenges these ideas with the House of Flying Daggers, who is made up of both men and women, showing how the house wants equal rights for everything, including gender politics as well as wealth.

 

House of Flying Daggers can be seen as a love triangle film in a wuxia genre set in a specific political/historical context. What is peculiar about how this plot and setting is explored in the film?

Setting a wuxia film in the past is not unusual. Even though the usual time setting is un-definable, the use of swords shows how it is before the invention of guns. But the idea of involving a love triangle into the story may be strange in 2004, but due to Twilight, released in 2005, love triangles became a huge cliché and trope in YA novels, which covers many genres, so today, it doesn’t seem odd. Zhang described it as a “love story inserted into an action movie”.

 

How accurate are the depictions of life in the Tang Dynasty? Why might we question the authenticity of these representations? Provide examples and evaluate.

The film is set during a period of when the Tang Dynasty was filled with unrest after a time of it being prosperous. This is a great backdrop for a story containing a rebel group who wants to share the wealth as many people would be struggling, similarly to the great depression. This time period is accurate as the “equal-field system” was abandoned so the poor fell into debt. The year before the film was set, there was a huge flood where a lot of people drowned, damaging the economy. But it is also considered the “golden age” of China because the flourish of culture. But due to the poor economy, everything during the Tang Dynasty could be seen as a conflicting time.

 

Why might the depiction of a heroic rebellion against the Tang Dynasty be a surprising production from one of China’s largest film producers?

The Chinese government is always trying to crush rebellions. Hong Kong being a key example right now. So a story of a rebellion is surprising as it could be seen that the rebellion may inspire people to rethink the government and rebel. But when you look at what the rebels are talking about, it is clear that they support the policies of the Communist government.

 

How might domestic, East Asian and audiences from around the world respond differently ‘House of Flying Daggers’?

The film is highly regarded. It is ranked #77 on Empire’s Top 100 World Cinema films of all time and #93 of The Best 100 Films of the Aughts by Slant Magazine. Even though it is highly regarded, the film is not as good as ‘Hero’, Zhangs’ previous film.

Spectatorship: Passive/active, positioning and alignment, range of responses, dynamic interaction, responses: preferred, oppositions, negotiations, film form.

Ideology: Binary oppositions, Positioning and address, connotations, critical frameworks, evaluate critical responses.

La La land is accused of being a sexist musical by feminists as Seb is represented as the music artist whose career skyrockets, yet Mia is an observer to his success, which is conveyed through the whole film as one of their first interactions where she watches Seb play the piano in a  restaurant. Mia struggles for her career and we only see her succeed at the end of the film, yet Seb’s career is handed to him by an old friend and he doesn’t have a huge struggle to become famous. When Seb surprises Mia at her house with dinner it’s clear that Emma Stone’s character is struggling and tired and feeling very pessimistic about her one woman show. Mia’s show is also controversial due to it failing and not making any profit as barely anyone showed up, but when we see Seb performing in his band the gig looks completely sold out. We mainly see Seb’s career and not Mia’s, despite us being introduced to her first and arguably being the more developed character.

It is also seen as a lover letter to many famous Hollywood moments, such as the “You Are The Star” mural which is outside the restaurant that Seb is playing at. Mia also pays a lot of homage to old Hollywood films such as Casablanca when she is giving Seb a mini tour of the Warner Bros’ studio lot. She also wants to become an actress because she used to watch old Hollywood films with her grandmother when she was a child, hence why she wants to be a Hollywood film actress. In one of her auditions she gets a call back, but its for a character in a TV show that she is only trying to get because she wants a job and money, not because she’s passionate about the show or the character she is auditioning for. We also see Mia get denied almost straight away at her callback.

Some audience members believe that the traditional and modern parts of the film (Seb and Mia) shouldn’t be combined as it makes the film confusing in what it’s trying to represent, whether we should appreciate and love traditional art, or move on with modern art forms. It doesn’t convince the audience; it just confuses them. Yet others believe that this is the point of the film and it’s meant to make you question what type of art you love and what you’re passionate about.

The film shows how different forms of art represent who we are as people, Seb and Mia have different tastes in art, Mia is more modern and doesn’t listen to jazz, but she loves traditional Hollywood films such as a Casablanca due to her childhood memories, mis acts more adult than Seb many times throughout the film as she is realistic and more pessimistic with her career dreams, unlike Seb who is optimistic and forced to grow up and settle with a  job that he doesn’t love because of the music he now has to create.

Critics and audiences either love or hate ‘La La Land’. The reasons people love ‘La La Land’ is how the film is an escape from reality which opposes the common Oscar film which is grounded in reality and is depressing. This is done by it being seen as a “visual poem” and a “love letter to Los Angeles”. It is also seen as a really good emotional film where the efforts are seen as charming. The fantasy element of the film being like a dream allows for the emotional ending. People also like the call backs to the classical musicals of the 50s. People also like how the film is split into two halves with the first half being sweet whilst the second half becoming more real, with the chemistry between the two makes it seem like they are in love. The score is also seen a vibrant and repeatable. It is also beautiful and the dancing of the film is down to earth that it doesn’t seem jarring when they enter a dance sequence. The chemistry of the stars also brought people into the spell of La La Land. The actors were compelling and allowed people to see them as lovers, not two actors acting, and want them to stay together. A big point of debate is the ending, with some people love the way it subverts your expectations whilst others don’t and thinks it comes out of nowhere. Those who liked it thought it was refreshing to see people not end up together and it be ok, but others were confused by the final montage of what life would be like together, made it seem that they did want to be together so it made no sense and just added confusion to the story. La La Land is looking at LA in a fantasy way through the eyes of the film camera. The point of the film is that it is combining the old and new.

 

However, people didn’t like it for other reasons. It isn’t a conventional musical. With people expecting a recreation of the old 50s musical, they were disappointed. As the film has the idea of the characters being real people, the actors can’t sing or dance well, which people didn’t like. With the rise in the popularity of Broadway shows into the mainstream media, ‘Hamilton’, ‘Dear Evan Hansen’, and them pushing out these new fresh-sounding musicals, ‘Come From Away’, ‘Natasha, Pierre & the Great Comet of 1812’, is innovating theatre, but La La Land is pushing back the development with old time musicals and generic romance plots. It simply doesn’t understand the musical genre which expects stars to belt out the songs, which in La La Land, doesn’t happen, leaving lovers of musical theatre and the classic 50s musicals disappointed. People have issues with the story of itself and the themes it represents. The musical presents Seb going on tour and changing the way Jazz is played as him selling out whilst Mia getting picked up by a studio is not. This is similar to the musical ‘Rent’ where selling out and getting money is apparently bad in the eyes of the creative minds, even though it can lead to greater things.

 

New Yorker Article

‘La La Land’ is one of the few original films released by Hollywood in the modern age of American cinema. As it is not an adaptation of a Broadway show, which most musicals were prior to 2016, which has now changed with the release of films like ‘The Greatest Showman’ and ‘A Star is Born’, despite it being a remake, or a jukebox musical like ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, the film is an original film. However, it also feels like it isn’t an original film because of the use of 50s nostalgia to act like a 50s musical.

Mia and Sebastian are characters in the film who follow the typical American dream. They don’t spend their days in other full time jobs that give them money. Sebastian works as pianist for a restaurant and other jobs whilst Mia is a barista constantly going on auditions. This idea of the American dream where anyone can become who they want to be if they put their mind to it has become obsolete due to the increase of workers in the field, which has led to less people getting their dream job. This shows how the two characters of Mia and Sebastian seem strange to be following their dreams, which explains the tagline of the film; “Here’s to the fools who dream”.

Within La La Land, we see a peculiarity in Chazelle’s approach to nostalgia within the film. From a nod to the eighties in the retro band Sebastian briefly joins, to the old Rialto theatre in which they see a screening of ‘Rebel Without A Cause’; we see a drift towards nostalgia yet with a different tone. Typically, nostalgia is represented as weak, often quite mopey. Chazelle turns this typical trope on its heads and works nostalgia as “gutsy and purposeful, rather than moony and limp”. Primarily, we see this through the character of Sebastian, often through the mise en scene of his outfits, his car and the location. In contrasting the typical trope of nostalgia, we are able to see nostalgia beautified in a positive way- rather than sadly.

Undeniably, the cinematography is beautiful. Curated by Linus Sandgren, and through shooting on technicolor film, the cinematography easily becomes a standout masterpiece of the film.  The beauty in colour runs throughout yet key examples would be the scene in which we see Mia and her roommates “sashay down the streets”, the colour of their dresses bursting on the screen. As a spectator, you are left in awe of what you see and become more drawn into the world of La La Land. It also adds a sense of magical realism which is heavily enticing to a spectator.

The dancing of the film is done smoothly, with the characters slipping into dance moments without it being odd. This is shown in the opening number where the choreographer was told to have it start of not dancing and slowly transition into a dance number. This can be seen as odd as a convention of the musical genre is usually to have big dance numbers that come from nowhere, and may be criticised by some people who were expecting random jumps into dance numbers like the old 50 musicals. This chilled back idea is shown in the singing as well as neither of the actors, Stone and Gosling, are strong singers and hence why their voices don’t make a big impact. This is to show how they are just real people singing who wish to have their dreams. In Stone’s solo, the husky catch to her voice shows the measure of her desires

The second half of ‘La La Land’ has been criticised for not being as good as the first half. This is because of the film’s abundance of set up and little pay off. This is shown in the five years later epilogue which is climactic but yet indecisive. The reimagined version of Mia’s life where she sees how it would have been if she stayed with Sebastian is confusing and only creates questions and not give answers. This could reflect reality which the film bases itself on but due to the musical genre and the romantic genre playing a big part of the film’s plot, it makes the audience feel annoyed at the ending rather than satisfied

Tying into both the use of technicolor film and nostalgic aesthetics of the film is the positive yet questionable image of Los Angeles in La La Land. The opening enables the spectator to be set up for the rest of the film. From this, we gather how song will be a frequent means of expression, are introduced to Mia & Sebastian and see the old-fashioned view of L.A, being a city of hope, revived. We see L.A as a magical city of dream-chasing, which is wonderful. However, it is so clearly an unrealistic interpretation of L.A. There is never rain, never bad weather, so much so that Mia walks home at Christmas “clad as if for June”.

At the end of the article, Lane puts a heavy emphasis on the point of seeing La La Land in the cinema- specifically encouraging the younger generation to do so. One reason for this may be to experience a musical film on a large screen, where you can take in every detail & colour & movement. Through a smaller screen, the film’s beauty may still be powerful yet you are unable to capture the full experience of the film. The emphasis on younger people participating in this may be because we missed out on the old Hollywood technicolor musicals being played on the big screen.

A lot of audience members who watched La La Land think that it is disappointing compared to other musicals, due to that performance of the cast with their singing and dancing. Die hard musical fans don’t agree with the casting of Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling and are distasteful for their vocal strengths, and they would rather that two theatre experts who are experienced. The audience are disappointed by the “basic” musical story as it’s seen as a ‘meet-cute song-and-dance escape’ which is typically the format that many musicals follow, and the musical-loving audience wanted something a bit more original, especially for a film that had such high expectations.

However, the mediocre performance from Stone and Gosling is seen as charming as the film is about two quite ordinary people going through life, working and finding life. One of the themes of the film is that it has a sense of realism; it isn’t like normal Broadway musicals. La La Land takes a turn after the first half, which people complained about having song’s to regularly that felt forced and unnatural. The opening made the setting seem incredibly colourful and diverse when everyone sang and danced on the busy road, but that slowly faded throughout the film, with us mainly only seeing Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling’s characters.

An Analysis and Comparison of the Narrative Features in Each Film 

 

When the Day Breaks: 

The main two characters are in similar scenes of them getting ready for their day by making their breakfast. The pig feels responsible for the death of the chicken, which matches with the audience’s reaction to the events and allows us to reflect on how we would act in this situation. The setting is set up through the film by using establishing shots to show the building where the two characters live. We know it is early in the morning as the characters are getting ready for their day. Quick paced transitions when going through the wires of electrical equipment allows the audience to see how no one else cares about the chicken’s death apart from the pig, this allows us to see the narrative crisis and resolution. The crisis of ‘When the Day Breaks’ is the chicken being run over. This is resolved later on in the short film where the pig starts to deal with the death of the chicken, after realizing it was an accident. This narrative crisis and resolution of the short film allows the creators to explore the binary opposition of Guilty Act vs Guilty Mind. This is the key theme in ‘When the Day Breaks’ which explores how people may feel like they are guilty, despite not doing anything wrong. The film is similar to the other films in multiple ways. Like in ‘La Jetee’, the short animated film follows two primary characters, with one being developed the most. There are other characters in the films but they are not heavily involved in the story. ‘Night Fishing’ uses songs, like in ‘When the Day Breaks’, which shows the audience the emotions of the character, similar to how songs are treated in musicals on stage on Broadway or the West End in London. 

 

Night Fishing: 

The film sets up its characters by throwing them into the scene. Due to the limited screen time, not a lot of backstory is shown. The main guy who goes fishing is introduced to us by him simply walking to the lake. The band seen throughout is also introduced at the beginning. They are the first people we see, and they start the film by singing a song, that seems out of place. This shows them as a mysterious entity, showcasing how this film is filled with enigmas and is up to interpretation. The woman who is the voice of the man’s spirit in the second half of the film is also left with no introduction, meaning the audience have to figure out who she is. The opening of the film sets up the location by showing the audience a mid shot of the back of the man’s head as he walks along to the river. We also see him set up his equipment, showing us that this is where the action will take place. This makes the final half of the film jarring as it’s change of location to the traditional Chinese building is odd and peculiar as it is has not been previously set up. The opening shot is during dusk. The warm tones in the sky show that it is dusk, meaning we know that scenes later on in the film, would be in the dark. The enigmas of the film center around, what is going on. The audience is left in the dark about what is happening. We don’t get any introduction to the story. The woman who is said to be consumed by the man’s spirit is implied and not explicitly said, meaning that this might not be the intention to what is happening. The story seems to follow a man who dies whilst fishing at night, leading to a woman being possessed by his soul so the family can get some closure. There isn’t a crisis here, and there isn’t a resolution. These enigmas make the binary opposition impossible to understand. They somewhat show how no one is truly dead, possibly breaking that binary opposition, but he is truly dead as the soul cannot repossess the woman, meaning that there is a barrier between the two worlds, hence solidifying the binary opposition.  

 

La Jetee: 

The character of the woman is introduced to us through the male character. Due the male character going back and forth in time, we see his relationships with the woman, which also develops his character. They are both similar people who have similar interest due to their romantic relationship. Time is fluid in the short film, the mise–en-scene of the film allows the audience to see how the future is dark and compare it to the present and their own lives. This means the audiences will see how their present is better then it could be and then work to make sure it doesn’t become the dystopian future shown in the film. The narrative of the film follows a man being sent back in time to see a woman again that he loved., at the end of the film, he is shot when he tries to see her again. This shows how death is abrupt. explores the binary oppositions of past and present but having the narrative flicking between the two, showing actions reflect other action is the future. The man’s death at the end shows how you cannot escape these actions and they will haunt you for the rest of time. This shows the moral of the film is to be careful of your actions in a sense.  

 

Meshes of the Afternoon: 

The woman of the film is shown set up repeatedly as we see her explore the house and enter the house multiple times. This is too show how the mysterious the character is and the enigma of what she is doing here is developed as we see more of the house. The character exploring the house is how we see the setting developed throughout the film. It is set up with her entering the house, and then developed later through this search. The time aspect is messy due to the non-linear structure as we constantly see the woman enter the house from the point of view of the first woman the audience sees enter the house. The enigma of the film is what reality is and what is actually a dream. The audience do not know what the resolution of the story is. The narrative itself is confusing as it seems to follow a woman exploring a house as more and more people enter.This is to make the audience think about what is real and not real and to figure it out for themselves and to make their own judgement.