Brittany Garcia- Silence of the Lambs 1991

Title: Silence of the Lambs
Director: Jonathan Demme
Year: 1991

When looking for movies from 1991, I came across several horror/drama films that seemed interesting. One particular movie, The Silence of the Lambs, was very chilling to me. As a quick overview, the movie is based on the famous Hannibal Lector. It  goes into a little background about him, where he was currently being held, and how he finally escaped prison. I definitely underestimated this movie. Little did I know how detailed it would actually be. I loved the film. Throughout the movie, we saw different scenes where Lector would kill people by biting them to pieces. For example, in one scene, he traps two prison guards in the cell with him and tears the one guards face completely apart using his mouth. Although I enjoyed this movie, parts like that totally creeped me out. While watching the movie, I tried to pay attention to some different techniques used.
After reviewing the power point last week in class, I noticed a few things that we talked about that were utilized throughout different scenes. During multiple different interviews between Jodie Foster ( the detective) and Lector, depending on the subject, the cameras would use medium close-up shots and close up shots. They also used extreme close-ups when emphasizing certain aspects of the conversation. I thought this was interesting because it is not something I ever really paid any attention too until taking this class. In a different scene, where the girl who had been kidnapped was being held captive in a hole almost like a well inside the mans house. The film used a low angle shot. In this case, the man was superior to the girl, just as the angle indicated. Another technique I had never been too familiar with. You being to understand movies so differently when you begin to understand the little things like the ones mentioned above. 

Breathless. 1983. Dir. Jim McBride

Breathless
Year: 1983
Director: Jim McBride
Breathless is one of
those movies where you also want to be the bad guy that has fun breaking the
law and gets the most beautiful girl. I think breathless is one of those movies
that depict crime as a glamorous thing. The main character starts the movie the
same way he ended it. With no fear for anything and somehow no respect either. As
this guy that just kill a cop intentionally or not (we do not see the moment
when he shots) goes in search of a girl that he meet in Las Vegas, we wonder
what kind of person would steal a car shot a cop and break in to a woman house.
This is a love story where a beautiful architecture student girl that has
everything including the support of her parents, support of her professors,
money and a bright future. She still falls in love with a guy that seems to
have an adventurous life. When she found out all he has done she goes on the
run with him. For her being on the run is the most exciting thing she can think
of. When she goes to the store to get some food she realized her face and his
face are in the newspaper. At the end she comes in reason the calls the police.
He never gives up and even when he is totally surrounded be cops with guns he
decides to tell her that he loves her by singing and dancing a song while the
cops look confused. He reaches down to pick up a gun and turns around facing
the cops. The movie end and we do not hear the sound of gun shots, but we do
not need to. We know what happens when you shot at a cop. The movie is an
example of a person that lives to the extreme. Unfortunately he seems to hurt
indirectly the lives of other that way. I believe the central point of the
movie is to show how wild and crazy society can tolerate and a close company
can be brain-washed into doing it to. The end is tragic. He dies for nothing
when he was only 28. She ruined her own life by making that mistake of going
with him. Now she is alone and has no support from anybody.

The Keep. 1983. Dir. Michael Mann

The Keep
Year: 1983
Director: Michael Mann
The keep is a movie
that mixes the horrors of the human nature and the horrors of science fiction. What
gripped my attention the first half of the movie was the social and human drama
of war and invasion. It is almost out of my imagination or to understand to
think about what it would be like to be in the place of millions of people that
lose everything they had even their dignity. I can stop thinking what I would
do and how I would react to a situation of that nature. This movie does not focus
in the atrocities of the Nazi invasion, but it shows the drama of it at some
extension. The lack of respect for private property and even life itself is absent
in extremes situation like wars and invasions. The special effects on this
movie are one of the best for the time it was made. Computer generated visual
effects in the 80’s was in its infancy. Many of the effects were done with
camera tricks. The scenography was really good. The town where the keep is at
is in this mysterious place in the middle of Romania. The keep itself is very interesting
the movie manage very well to keep the viewer interested in the mysteries of
the keep. The second half of the movie is about a supernatural force that is
killing the people at the keep. The jump from the drama of war to the drama of
a ghost or monster is drastic. The rest of the movie is about the eternal
battle of good and evil. The humans in this case have to make a wise decision that
of course we are not prepare to make. At the end everything is fine the humans
make the right decisions the good defeats the bad. They save the planet of a
great evil but the evil of human kind still destroys the lives of millions. I
thing one of the messages of the movie is that the eternal battle of good and
evil does not come from supernatural creatures but from us. We are the ones
that create horrible situations like wars, repression, hunger, intolerance,
hate.

Amy Petter- What about Bob?(1991)

What about Bob?

Director: Frank Oz

Year: 1991

            What about Bob? is a well made comedy. The beginning of the movie really gets you interested as the first few scenes are moving shots of Bob Wiley leaving his apartment and going into the city. Bob’s problems are introduced to the viewers within 5 minutes of the film. The beginning focuses of his Obsessive Compulsive Disorder as he is nervous about leaving his apartment, touching doorknobs, and using public transportation. The zoom shot of his hand opening the door with a Kleenex really adds to the humor of OCD.

            One thing that was very different from the other films I watched was the split screen that was used when Dr. Marvin’s assistant Betty answered the phone. Bob Wiley was shown on the left side while Betty was on the right. I thought that this was a very good technique because we got to see both characters facial expressions while they were on the phone. One technique during the same scene that I did not like was the transition that they used from one slide to another. They used a basic transition that you would find in a very unprofessional movie.

            For a movie that was made in 1991, I was very impressed with the special effects that were used during the scene where Bob accidently blows up Dr. Marvin’s house. The special effects were much better quality than I have seen in other 1991 movies.

            Overall, I was very impressed with the film. It was much better than a few of the other ones I watched for class. Bill Murray did a great job playing Bob Wiley’s part in the movie. I would definitely watch this movie on my own time.

Amanda Valderrama Demolition Man(1993) #1

Director: Marco Brambilla

I really enjoyed the film Demolition Man because it had a perspective on the world in the 90’s that can still be said in the 21^st century. I feel that the film revolves around this whole ideaof the future and the director depicts his ideas of it very visually appealing. The film brings youinto this prediction of the future world, a place where violence is no longer a big issue. Yes, inthe world today violence is becoming more of a occurrence and problem but to say that we canbe able to rid of it in the next ten to 20 years is inaccurate.

I don’t think we can live in a perfect society where profanity and weapons do not exist because it would cause a much bigger problem. We wouldn’t understand the ways to defend ourselves, our lives would be sheltered andwe would all live very mind-numbingly. The police officers in the film are naïve to everything around them, much like today we too are naïve to important things. I feel that “the man” is always above us controlling what we do and that causes us not to know the truth about important matters. I would compare Dr. Cocteau in the film as “the man” because he was leading the city of San Angeles and all of his people praised him but was unaware that he was unleashing a criminal killing machine behind the scenes. My favorite shot was the medium close up shot of Simon Phoenix because with how director set it up and with lighting, you could tell that he was the antagonist of the film. I also thought the performances by the actors were well portrayed. My favorite scene was when Dennis Leary gave a whole speech about the things he enjoys to do that are frowned upon. The whole quote was almost an exact summary of what our civilization is today.

Lauren Potts Post-5 When Harry Met Sally 1989 Dir Rob Reiner

When Harry Met Sally 1989

Director: Rob Reiner

Lauren Potts

I finally saw it

                It was a long time coming, but I finally saw the infamous diner scene in its entirety.    When Harry Met Sally, is a romantic comedy about two people who bump into each other thought-out their lives.  From the romantic-comedy aspect this movies deals with the relationship that men and women share, but it also shows that finding your “true love” might take 12 years but it is worth the wait.

                I would say this is the college version of Say Anything, their plots are different, but the bases of the story are the same: guy meets girl, guy falls in love with girl, and they fall in love.  Harry meets sally after they graduate from college.  They carpool to New York to start their lives, and bump into each other over the next 12 years.  When Harry first meets Sally I thought he immediately liked her but was to macho to admit.     Somewhere in those twelve years they become friends and their friendship evolves into a relationship sort of…   After a big fight the two calls it quits.  In say Anything  Lloyd is on the chase to win back Diane’s heart , this is the same for Harry is on a chase well running in New York to win back Sally.I that the men are fighting to win the girls heart, chivalry is not dead after all at least back in 1989.  In an interesting way both men profess their love and the women kind of give the same speech, Sally repeats “I hate you” and Diane say “I need You” both showing their vulnerability.

                In watching the iconic diner scene there many different shots used.  It started out as an over-the-shoulder shot to a two-shot, then jumps to a close up of Sally’s face and back to an over-the-shoulder-shot, and it repeats the order until the scene ends.  There were a few cutaways too, mostly of older people talking about relationships and when they fell in love.  Showing how relationships evolve over time.     In the ending it ends with them kissing then of a voice over of them talking, then a shot of them talking about their weeding three months later after that cuts to black. 

                Yes it is a chick flick and I must say I liked it. It was a cute movie.    You can never go wrong with a simple love story.   It can teach you a thing or two.  I learned to say how I feel to people whether than holding it in, even if is sappy you can’t hide how you feel about a person.

  

Lauren Potts- Post 4 Stay Together 1989 Dir Lee Grant

Staying Together 1989

Director: Lee Grant

Lauren Potts

Warm

            Facing adversities can be hard enough, but having a family to go through them can make it easier.  Staying Together is a movie about a family trying to keep its self together after losing its family business and father.  This movie illustrates how people can overcome hardship, and satisfying yourself should always be a priority.

            Dealing with a death and loss of and business is no laughing matter, but it is a sour lesson to learn.  Being able to handle adversities allows you to mature more as a person.  In the first half of the film the three sons were young carefree men taking life day by day.  Flashed forward to the ending, they are all on their separate path, one is going to college another is running a marathon in New York, and the oldest is settling in to family life.  None of them thought the death of their father and loss of their family business would bring them to the men that they are in the end, but that is was adversity does to a person.  That made me think about my own journey and the adversities I faced.  It still shocks me today that I am in college; I didn’t even pack until 12 hours before I left for school.  2011 was a scary year for me and my family but as we are in 2012 we have grown a lot.

            Their father decides to sell the family fast food restaurant, because he doesn’t “want die a chicken man.”  For many years he has given himself to his family and restaurant, but now it is time for him to stand on his own despite his son’s anger.  I thought this was very admirable for him to do, no matter how old you are or what position you hold in your family, going against your clan is a tough pill to swallow.  It made me think of Say Anything toward the end of the fill Diane made it clear that she only wanted to be with Lloyd, despite her father’s refusal.   When you believe in something you fight for it no matter what.  

            Some shots that interested me were when the brothers were together.  It was three of them total but I mostly saw two shots of them.   When they were all on the screen the camera was in a wide shot, sometime the shot was narrow in few scenes.  A series of reaction shots I noticed was when the mayor (who had a physical relationship with the oldest brother) saw him at a weeding with his new girlfriend and her son.  It showed Brian and his new girlfriend, cut to Nancy expression her looking sad and walking away.  Overall I really enjoyed watching the film and seeing the characters grow.

Amita RajGuru, Post 5

City of Joy, 1992, Roland Joffé

True heroism lies in the quality of the struggle. Directed by Roland Joffé, City of Joy is an emotional roller-coaster of two men from different parts of the world, and shows how they fit into the bigger picture of the working life in India. Initially comprising of slow motion medium close-up shots, and lots of jump cuts between Max, his nurses, his patient and the hospital, the viewer is introduced to a focused and concentration-driven environment: Max’s operating room. The slow motion effect makes every movement of the doctors and nurses slow and precise. The only sound the viewer hears is the patient’s heart rate monitor, which gradually slows down and gets louder as his heart ceases. The combined effects of the sound and camera shots creates a sense of urgency and panic, which is subsides when Max bursts out of the O.R. in defeat and morphs into feelings of bemusement. At this time, the viewer hears the voiceover of a conversation between Max and his father discussing Max’s failures, revealing his father’s disapproval. Due to these events and those prior to it, Max leaves on a plane for India.

India is a crowded place – and that’s an understatement! To show the large crowds, several types of shots are used, primarily the full shot because they capture a wide area. Moving shots are also used effectively to demonstrate the concentration of people in a typical Indian street or train station. For example, when Hazari and his family are moving through a street to ask shopkeepers for work, the viewer never has a direct view of them – there’s always something in the way, such as a car or a person or a horse. These shots demonstrate the intricacy of India and how it differs from the USA. 

Moving shots are also frequently used to demonstrate the complexity of each scene – there is so much going on at once and Max, or Hazari and his family just happen to be part of the grander scheme of things. For example, half way through the movie, when Max is helping rebuild a house, the viewer sees him briefly but then proceeds to see how other unnamed or minor characters are also collaborating, until getting back to Max through the moving shot.

Joffé uses a lot of low-angle shots to look up at the characters, though not always with the intention of giving one character more power over the other. For example, when Hazari is looking for a job as a “human horse” to pull a rickshaw, the camera angle is lower than all the characters and looks up at them. This is interesting because it makes it seem like they are all important – the unchanging camera angle doesn’t put the employer at a higher position than the employee.

Over-the-shoulder shots are used occasionally to give a dynamic look to dialogue between characters. A more intimate relationship – such as a friend or family member – is suggested when medium close-up shots are used rather than medium or long shots.

During the majority of the film, in scenes with a lot of depth, the foreground is usually in focus and the background is blurred. This draws focus to the characters having a conversation, while providing an animated, colorful and interactive backdrop – it’s so busy, and yet people are in a world of their own as they carry out their daily lives. 

Chaos is shown through fast cuts in shots of aggression and violence. For example, when Max and Hazari are trying to fight back an angry mob and protect the victim leper population, the viewer sees several shots of their defense efforts, as well as rallying the lepers into a sort of safehouse, followed by the attack of the mob, and everything in between. The rapid cuts give the impression that all these occurrences are happening at once, thus leading the viewer to a sense of chaos and disorder. Moreover, the victims of the attacks – such as the man with no legs who has a fire bomb thrown at him – are shown at eye-level long shots, while Ashok, the man who orchestrated the mob to show Joan why the leper center needs his protection, is seen from a low-angle camera shot, giving him more power over the chaos they are overlooking. Finally, Joan admits that she needs his protection from such attacks and decides to pay him, so because of his threat, he did in fact have the upper hand in the scene.

The reaction shots of this movie are very interestingly executed. The majority are medium shots and tend to pull away from the character’s face, but one that stands out as being a very personal reaction shot is when Max sees Amrita after her attack that resulted in her mouth being cut at the ends, similar to the Joker from Batman. His reaction shot is only momentary but reveals the horror in his eyes effectively. Another interesting reaction shot is when Ashok takes Hazari’s rickshaw away. It begins as a two-shot, and then graduates quickly to medium close-up shots of each character as they talk to one another. The viewer sees Hazari from a high angle shot, making him inferior, and Ashok from a low angle shot, giving him more power in the scene. However, when Hazari hears that Ashok is taking away his rickshaw, he immediately reacts and this draws the camera to him in a moving shot, which captures not only Hazari’s reaction but also the two men who are sent to confiscate his rickshaw.

On a lighter note, one of the most heartwarming reaction shots in this movie occurs when Hazari is told in the courtroom that he only needs to pay 50 rupees to be freed of his charges. When he looks in despair at the judge to tell her that he can’t afford that price, he turns around to see all the men behind him pulling money out of their pockets to give to him. The reaction shot comes in when the camera cuts to a medium shot of Max with a big smile on his face, and a feeling of being satisfaction and happiness. This is a heartwarming scene because it shows the solidarity and strength of Hazari and his community.

Towards the end of the movie, there is an uplifting change in Hazari’s status, which is shown through the camera angle: the viewer sees him in low angle shots, giving him more strength and formidability in the scene. Where he once crouched in front of other people, he now stands tall and powerful. For example, at one point Hazari and his family look down onto one of the streets and see the people all looking up at him and waving and smiling. This specific position causes the viewer to look up to Hazari, promoting his status.

The wedding scene at the end of the movie seems almost like a dream in how idyllic it appears to the viewer – medium close-ups are almost completely blurred behind the character on screen, and there is a lot of blurred movement in the background of a lot of the medium shot scenes. This, in conjunction with the bright colors of the Indian wedding, creates a sense of joy and happiness.

Nonetheless, the film ends on a bittersweet note: Max and a wounded Hazari walk off into an empty street away from the wedding. Using a quick jump cut back to the wedding, and continuing to shift to an establishing shot of the outdoor post-wedding celebrations, the shock of Hazari’s wound is softened – but in the end, Max and Hazari are no where in sight. 

Amy Petter- Cape Fear (1991)

Cape Fear

Director: Martin Scorsese

Year: 1991

            In Cape Fear, the beginning started off very slow. The film was extremely corny.  Scenes were shot, ending with a blank red scene, trying to frighten the viewer, but added to being cheesy. In the beginning, Sam and Leigh were having sex when the camera switched to reverse lighting where the whites were black and the blacks were white.

            The movie was rather bizarre, not one of my favorites. It has a lot of different parts that need to be put together than don’t come together until the end. The movie didn’t really pick up all too much until over an hour and a half into it. I found many scenes to be completely unrealistic, especially when Danielle goes into the theater for her drama class and sees Max there. She figures out who he is and is frightened, but makes out with him and puts his fingers in her mouth. Max also takes on three men in a dark alley. I can take a lot of horrible acting, but this was just too much for me.

            For a film a little over two hours, it was extremely boring. The filming techniques were decent as they took advantage of using extreme close-ups. The music added to the foreshadowing in a corny way.

            They seem to use the zoom technique frequently to key in to certain parts and bring emotion into the scene. The real thrill to the movie didn’t come until over an hour and a half into the movie when Max was in the house and killed Claude Kersek and Max followed them to the river, where he tried to kill them.

            Overall, the quality of the movie was extremely disappointing. I was expecting a the movie to be a lot more interesting and scary from the start, not when its over half way over. The techniques used for the film was strange, but effective. The main downfall was that everything that happened was completely not even believable and corny that it made it almost unbearable to watch the film.

Amita RajGuru, Post 4

The Opposite Sex and How to Live with Them, 1992, Matthew Meshekoff

They were the perfect couple... Then they fell in love. Directed by Matthew Meshekoff, the film begins with a series of medium shots interspersed with a few close-up shots and some other humorous shots along the way. In fact, there is a particularly funny point-of-view shot that is used at the beginning of the movie to introduce the two main characters, David and Carrie. When David is in a bar, he looks through a periscope up at the street above the bar and watches women’s legs as they pass by. 

Crowd scenes, such as at the baseball game, have the foreground in focus and blur the background slightly because Carrie and David’s scene occurs in the foreground. This particular scene also features an over-the-shoulder close-up of Carrie from a slightly high angle so the viewer looks down at her over David’s shoulder – which is a very flattering and dynamic angle. 

Apart from jump cuts and montages used to show the passing of time, medium close-up shots and slow pans are used to capture the more intimate scenes between David and Carrie. The bulk of the movie comprises of two-shots of Carrie and David and yet they don’t always appear the same. For example, when they first meet, they are standing facing each other, and are captured in over-the-shoulder shots. During the rest of the movie, they are almost always side by side and yet each two-shot looks different: by the office door, they’re leaning into each other; on the beach chair, they’re both leaning diagonally right in the shot. It’s fun. It’s interesting. Though it’s the same two people, it’s never boring.

Meshekoff repeatedly breaks the rule of thirds – a lot of shots focus on the center of the frame rather than the four hotspots of the tic tac toe grid. This does, at times, make for a boring image, but the characters are lively enough to avoid complete boredom. For example, most of the close-ups of Carrie are centered rather than off-center. This doesn’t make for a dynamic shot, but it cuts to other shots quickly enough to avoid the viewer loosing focus.

To break away from the monotony that can arise from a typical boy-meets-girl love story, there is an occasional interruption by a blonde commentator (whose role is also filled by David and other characters). The choice of filming style is interesting here because it is shot head-on, which isn’t very flattering. Appearing as a relatively flat image, there isn’t much dynamism in these scenes – however, her actions and lively behavior somewhat compensate for the flat picture.

At one point during the film, Carrie directly addresses the camera, which creates a sense of intimacy with her and the viewer, but is also strange because it’s unusual... so far, the only characters that have addressed the camera have been shot head-on with a black backdrop, which is directly intentional. But the shot doesn’t get boring because it gradually zooms in, from a medium shot of her in the bathtub to a medium close-up shot. Soon after, David also addresses the camera but it begins as a close-up shot and progresses to a medium shot of him sitting back in bed. It links the viewer with the characters more to understand what they’re feeling. 

An interestingly shot sequence towards the end of the film: a small, old television set is shown on screen, which is playing out the rekindling of David and Carrie’s relationship after their brief falling-out. It’s a quirky, more interactive way to show the progression and resolution of their relationship

Ending on a slightly cheesier note, the two plan to get married. After a full shot of a baseball field, Meshekoff cues the nostalgic and life-affirming music to close in on a series of medium and medium close-up shots of David and Eli talking about David’s impending marriage. The mixed religion wedding goes off without a hitch and comprises of another series of medium shots and long shots. The characters that address the camera at the end provide more comedy relief and a sense that the viewer was more involved in the story.

Amita RajGuru, Post 3

Class Act, 1992, Randall Miller

Let it never be said that the comedic style of the Fresh Prince of Bel Air couldn’t be replicated. Straight from the start of this movie, Class Act comes across as any stereotypical teenage movie from the 90s. It’s a fitting description too as Fresh Prince’s Karyn Parsons was in it. It’s something that would have been on Nickelodeon, even though it supposedly played on HBO. Beginning with a series of establishing shots, followed by pan shots, over-the-shoulder shots and lots of dolly shots, the directorial choices help make the movie cheesy. The first interesting two-shot at the beginning of the movie happens when two characters, Blade and his lawyer, are shown to be arguing on two sides of a wall – but this quickly reverts to over-the-shoulder shots.

A humorous and yet cliché camera technique used at the beginning of the movie starts on people’s feet and moves upwards as they walk around the corner – which happens a mere 8 minutes into the movie. Also, when the camera tilts up to see the group of teenagers, the camera remains at a low angle – this would normally make them more formidable, but their overdone actions and movements only end up making them look silly – which may be intentionally humorous.

The plot really begins when Blade and Duncan meet and start their friendship, and this is documented with several medium close-ups and moving shots, such as when they go to a club for the first time together. The camera follows them in and then gradually shifts to a full shot of the whole dance floor, only before jumping to a montage of close-ups and medium shots of people dancing. This acts as an introduction to Duncan’s first time experience in the club.

The pace of the movie speeds up when frequent cuts are used. For instance, when Blade is trying to teach Duncan how to speak less “intelligently”, the camera shifts to different over-the-shoulder shots as each character speaks. The camera angles, combined with the content of the dialogue creates fast paced humor.

A particularly cliché but classic point-of-view shot is used when Duncan is playing football – the camera takes on the football’s perspective as it flies towards him to catch. It adds a little bit of humor to the scene but and is a change from the general types of camera angles used thus far. The point-of-view shot also reappears briefly when Blade is walking up to Ellen’s house and the camera takes on his perspective for a few seconds. This effectively personalizes the moment for that character to the viewer – as if the viewer is walking up to the house.

To show the viewer small bits of action from around the classroom, moving pan shots are used, and tend to stop on the main conversation at hand. For example, this is how the classroom scene is introduced when Duncan and Damita are discussing a frog for biology. This is visually stimulating for the viewer because of the different mini-scenes that are seen before settling on the main characters in it – such as when Popsicle is examining a frog through magnifying glasses humorously.

Similar to the bulk of the movie, the end is made up of moving two-shots and full shots, with quick cuts to speed things along. After a slow motion sequence, and a little comedy relief, the movie ends on a cheesy note with a full shot montage of Duncan explaining how the other characters’ lives turned out – cheesy, corny, but personalized for the viewer. Good old teenage 90s fun at its finest.

Amita RajGuru, Post 2

Sarafina!, 1992, Darrell Roodt

She was their teacher. They were her hope. Directed by Darrell Roodt, Sarafina! is based on this hit broadway musical. The film adaptation, while filled with a lot of movement and a few cheesy musical sing-a-longs, is the heartwarming story of a South African teacher who gave hope to her students of racial equality during the Apartheid. The beginning of the movie is made up of a sequence of slow motion medium close-up shots which, during the musical sections, cuts to long shots that pan across the crowd of people. Full and establishing shots are also used to show street views and large crowds of people.

Most of the shots are never static – instead, they have a Ken Burns flair and partially zoom in during medium close-up shots. This sets up a dreamlike quality to the movie, which is only enhanced with the unnatural spontaneous song and dance. The Ken Burns effect makes the characters become more recognizable as the voiceover follows the images shown to the viewer. For example, during a discussion of hope through the Apartheid era, the viewer sees a medium close-up shot of Mary Masembuko as she looks proudly to the crowd of young faces. Her peaceful expression, and the Ken Burns effect, foreshadows her importance as a character in the lives of her students.

The Ken Burns effect quickly disappears as the film progresses and the static long shots create more of a documentary style – perhaps to make the actual plot more believable and less fanciful as a musical can become. Also, in scenes with groups of people, the camera tends to focus more on the people in the background and blurs the foreground image.

For deep and emotional dialogue, close-up shots are used to create intimacy with the characters as well as to highlight the importance of the conversation. For example, the conversation between Sarafina and her mother is a very personal and heated exchange. Discussing their current living situation, Sarafina speaks about how she is unhappy with her life – her mother defends herself by saying it’s the best she could provide. The intensity of the conversation rises as the camera gets closer and closer to the characters’ faces until they are framed in close-up shots. The rapid cuts back and forth between the characters increases the speed of the conversation until the climax at the end of the dialogue – when Sarafina declares that she would rather die like her father did in battle, than live like her mother as a servant.

The establishing shots in the film are never completely still – they usually have at least one person or character moving. For example, after the “Soweto Street Fighting Song”, an establishing shot of a lively road is used to show Sarafina walking up to Mary Masembuko’s house, thus situating the character.

There wasn’t always sufficient headroom in some of the medium close-up shots, such as when Mary Masembuko’s class is taken over by a male teacher. His medium close-up shots don’t show his whole but, but get cut off just above his hairline. This may be intentional to undermine his character, even though we do see more of him in the medium shots that preceed and follow it. As the viewer gets closer to his face, however, more of his frustration is accentuated in his eyes.

Over-the-shoulder shots are used frequently in the film, but the most effective and memorable use of it was in a low angle shot of Constable Sabela when he is violently kicking another man. This shot not only provides a dynamic scene for the viewer, but also gives Sabela more power because the viewer has to look up at him.

Point-of-view shots are not really used in this film except for when there are scenes involving cars. The camera sits on the dashboard of the car and shakes with it as the car rolls over the bumpy dirt roads. For example, at one point, two characters are sitting in the back of a car traveling on an unpaved village road – one man is holding a gun to the other’s head and yelling at him. When the camera looks out the front of the moving car, and then cuts back to the men in the back seat, a sense of urgency is created and danger, which gives the viewer an idea of how the hostage is feeling.

The Ken Burns effect reappears at the end of the film as more intimate conversations take place – especially when Sarafina confronts her mother about killing a man. More full shots are also used to show how the landscape and/or amount of people in the area have changed. For instance, when Sarafina walks back to her village and school, a long shot of her and a close-up of the grass in front of her is used to show her connection to the environment. Similar to Mary Masembuko’s advice on being connected to the Earth and it’s natural rhythm, the high angle of the shot allows the viewer to look down on Sarafina, making her look small. This may be a subconscious message that Sarafina and her story was just a small part, or an example, of what was happening on a larger, more violent scale.

Amita RajGuru, Post 1

The Power of One, 1992, John Avildsen

An exhilarating epic of a triumph of the heart. Directed by John Avildsen, The Power of One opens with a series of establishing shots that slowly pan around the interior and exterior of the PK’s home, the protagonist. This is accompanied by a voiceover including descriptions of PK’s family and life, which gives the movie a personal, home-movie feel. 

When the viewer sees PK being born and breastfed, a few moving shots are used to focus attention and make the clear distinction that the young voice heard is that of the newborn. The first 15 minutes have more transitions between scenes than the rest of the movie, and are slow fade transitions – this gives the story a more nostalgic feel, like the main character is recalling a memory. 

As the film progresses, especially after PK’s mother dies, more straight jump cuts are used. It’s interesting to note that for almost all the beginning shots that involve zooming, the camera starts in a close-up shot and gradually pulls back to reveal either a medium or full shot. This creates more intimacy with the scene because the viewer understands a small part of the scene before seeing how it fits in with the actions of others. An exception to this, however, is during the funeral of PK’s mother: starting as a full shot, the camera eventually shifts to a close-up of PK, which creates a deeper sense of pity in the viewer. 

During the beginning portion of the movie, there are few over-the-shoulder shots, but when they do happen the character’s shoulder is often too close to the camera and is completely out of focus – it would almost be better if it wasn’t in the shot because it’s a little distracting. For example, this occurs in the scene where PK is surrouned by boys advocating Hitler’s racism. Most of the shots of their “ring leader” are over-the-shoulder.

The main bulk of the movie is filled with a series of predictable shots, ranging from long shots to medium shots – not many close-ups – but lots of jump cuts between scenic pan shots. Most of the medium shots are either shot at a low or high angle... it’s unusual to find one that’s straight on. This gives the viewer a slightly more interesting angle to look at the scene, but feels unnatural and like the camera should be from one of the characters’ perspectives but isn’t quite there. There are many examples of this, such as when a more mature PK is talking to Doc, the camera angle changes from high (while framing PK) to low (while framing Doc). 

One of the most interesting scenes uses a combination of two types of shot: a triple shot and over-the-shoulder shot. An example of this in action is when PK speaks with Maria and another boy. The scene is shot from over the shoulder of both the boy and Maria, and focuses on PK on the right hand side of the screen. It’s interesting because three people are in the relatively intimate shot, while not getting too intimate – it still adheres to the “three’s a crowd” idea.

Full shots are used frequently in the movie to both situate the characters and create a sense of intimacy between/among them because the action or conversation is concentrated in one corner of the shot. For example, when PK is alone in the wilderness with Maria, they sit around a fire that only lights them and keeps the rest of the frame relatively dark – focusing attention on them.

The end of the movie is much like the beginning... more over the shoulder shots are used and in most of the full shots, only the background is in focus. Towards the end, there are more frequent cuts between shots to create tension and speed. For example, when policemen start shooting at civilians, the camera cuts back and forth between the policemen and the civilians and PK trying to avoid the whole fiasco.

Ending on a rather cliché note, the movie ends with a full shot that gradually widens as the viewer sees the two men’s silhouettes as they walk off into the sunset. This mirrors the beginning of the movie and, as the short epilogue in writing comes up on the screen, it demonstrates how the film has come full circle in the plot – a clean and simple ending.

Claudine (1974)

Claudine (1974)

Director: John Berry

On our first day of class we were asked the question of "what's your favorite movie?". My answer at the time was Love Jones. Although that is still my favorite movie, I have added the 1974 classic Claudine to the list also. While viewing the movie I became intrigued by the acting abilities of Diahann Carroll and James Earl Jones as well as the direction that had taken place within the movie. Carroll plays Claudine, a single mother of six who secretly works as a maid so she can still collect welfare. Jones' plays Roop, a garbageman who is very attracted to Claudine yet has baggage he has to deal with as well.

The early '70s are remembered for the so-called blaxploitation films, the action pictures that gave African American audiences a new set of screen heroes to cheer for. But thankfully director John Berry showed us a beautiful Black love story to cheer for as well. Jones' character Roop is no knight in shining armor, however he is supporting wives and children from two previous marriages, and his motives for romancing Claudine don't run to commitment and further responsibilities. Claudine hides her employment as a maid as well as the presence of Roop's and gifts from her welfare worker, knowing that discovery of any of them will reduce her payments. Therefore, both characters had issues to deal with upon entering the relationship.

The film also tries to deal with oldest son Charles' growing political militancy and oldest daughter Charlene's budding adolescence. Although it's unclear what Charles and his friends are fighting for, Charlene's personal crisis leads to one of the film's strongest scenes, a violent confrontation with her mother. John Berry did a remarkable job directing the movie as well as telling the story of a struggling single Mom. Although the characters did a remarkable job acting, the script, in my opinion, is repetitious. While viewing Black films from the 70s, characters were usually portrayed as struggling families who were looking for work or broken familes who were trying to hold on to some sort of dignity although they lived in poverty.Although I was happy the two characters became married in the end, I wasn't pleased with how the director chose to end the film where in turn caused it to have a hasty wrap up. It looked as if the filmmakers either ran out of money or time which therefore caused it to have the abrupt ending it did. Although these are small critiques, both lead actors were strong and very believable.