The so-called "director's cut" of Dark City has several changes, a few of which improve the film, a few that detract. Here's a list of the things I can recall.
1. The film starts without the voice-over. That explanation is given later, in the rowboat scene.
2. There is no tuning at the beginning. The first hint of the supernatural, aside from the ghostly visage of the strangers, is when Murdoch is confronted by them on the scaffold. (I'm not sure if they put the conscierge to sleep before that. Perhaps)
3. Murdoch, while dressing, turns his shoe over and sees that it has not been worn.
4. Murdoch's fingerprints are shaped like a spiral, leading Bumstead to question whether someone is "joking."
5. Jennifer Connolly's actual voice is used in the songs instead of a professional singer. You can access the two on "youtube." I prefer the actual voice, which is less polished, but more sultry and atmospheric.
6. She sings a lot more of the second song. Detracts, I think from the mood.
7. The prostitute has a small child hiding in the room, the sight of which causes Murdoch to flee. She is later found by Emma and Bumstead after her mother's murder, and has drawn a picture of the three strangers, further leading Bumstead to accept that Murdoch is innocent. Film is better without her in it, I think.
8. Several scenes are just longer, with more dialogue. Frankly, I think the lack of dialogue in the original is better.
9. Murdoch is present, though hiding, when Mr. Hand goes to see Shreber in the pool. He learns more about the whole situation than we are led to believe in the original version. Also, the weakness of the Strangers in not detecting his presence is revealed.
10. Bumstead, while drinking capuccino, sees the swirl in his coffee, leading him to question his reality further.
11. During the the scene where Murdoch tells Emma that it's probable that they have never met before, she says, "I had that same feeling when I saw you at the apartment." But then she says, "no, I've loved you for years and we've been married for years etc." Only the second part is shown in the original. Her doubts are left out.
12. A longer speech is given by Mr. Hand at the harbor when he sees Emma and uses Murdoch's own words from long ago. The shorter version is better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't prove it unless I watch the two versions side by side, but it seemed to me that they used a number of alternative takes or out takes in the director's cut, for no other reason than to just show an alternative version. I may be mistaken on this. However, if I am correct, the effect is not an improvement. Some of the takes seem inferior. However, it may simply be that they have been made slightly longer. In film, less is often more when it comes to dialogue. Much can be conveyed through gesture, a facial expression, etc. Supposedly, the scene in Citizen Kane where Kane first meets Susan was shortened in this way. At one point, Susan says, "you know how mothers are." The original screenplay supposedly had Kane launch into a speech. In the final cut, he merely mumbles Hm-mmm, with a very meaningful look on his face. We capture it all.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Dark City
Stealing again, from my blog from my film class in 2009.
I remember vividly seeing Dark City in the theatre on Staten Island when it came out back in 98 or 99. The year before, a big hit was 12 Monkeys, and everybody ooooh'd and aaaah'd about Brad Pitt's performance, which I thought overdone and no more (or less, mind you) than a great imitation of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now. The problem with 12 Monkeys for me was that the riddle was kept up for so long that I started to not care what the answer was. In other words, the director kept the audience in the dark for too long.
For this reason, I thought that Dark City was what 12 Monkeys wanted to be, but failed. I thought we were kept sufficiently in the dark, (pun recognized) for just exactly the right amount of time. Then, once we had a fairly good idea of what was going on, the suspense only heightened. I really loved this film, and I hope that today's beginning whetted your appetite for more.
Along this same line of discussion, however, I have always disliked the opening scene, where the voice-over of Dr. Shreber basically gives the plot away. Fortunately, I have a terrible attention span, and am a really bad movie viewer (the first time around) so I forgot most of what he said.
I was very much tempted to delete that scene today, but I didn't because the cut was not seamless, and I just decided not to. But, lo and behold, I should have, because I looked the film up on Wiki, and found out that Proyas was forced to add that scene by a nervous studio exec who worried that audiences would be turned off without it. The fact that voice-over of this kind is endemic to film noir somewhat mitigates the crime, but the director's cut, which is available, apparently, starts teh film diffferently.
I also read something else that confirmed a statement I made today in class. (It is gratifying to hear that one's independent analysis is backed up by statistics). Apparently, this film has the shortest average cut time of any film on record at 1.8 seconds. This means that the average time between cuts is less than 2 seconds. During the scene where Detective Wallenski rushes in I think we had about 20 cuts in 5 seconds.
I remember vividly seeing Dark City in the theatre on Staten Island when it came out back in 98 or 99. The year before, a big hit was 12 Monkeys, and everybody ooooh'd and aaaah'd about Brad Pitt's performance, which I thought overdone and no more (or less, mind you) than a great imitation of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now. The problem with 12 Monkeys for me was that the riddle was kept up for so long that I started to not care what the answer was. In other words, the director kept the audience in the dark for too long.
For this reason, I thought that Dark City was what 12 Monkeys wanted to be, but failed. I thought we were kept sufficiently in the dark, (pun recognized) for just exactly the right amount of time. Then, once we had a fairly good idea of what was going on, the suspense only heightened. I really loved this film, and I hope that today's beginning whetted your appetite for more.
Along this same line of discussion, however, I have always disliked the opening scene, where the voice-over of Dr. Shreber basically gives the plot away. Fortunately, I have a terrible attention span, and am a really bad movie viewer (the first time around) so I forgot most of what he said.
I was very much tempted to delete that scene today, but I didn't because the cut was not seamless, and I just decided not to. But, lo and behold, I should have, because I looked the film up on Wiki, and found out that Proyas was forced to add that scene by a nervous studio exec who worried that audiences would be turned off without it. The fact that voice-over of this kind is endemic to film noir somewhat mitigates the crime, but the director's cut, which is available, apparently, starts teh film diffferently.
I also read something else that confirmed a statement I made today in class. (It is gratifying to hear that one's independent analysis is backed up by statistics). Apparently, this film has the shortest average cut time of any film on record at 1.8 seconds. This means that the average time between cuts is less than 2 seconds. During the scene where Detective Wallenski rushes in I think we had about 20 cuts in 5 seconds.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Asphalt Jungle
I've always been a huge fan of "film noir," the gritty crime dramas so popular during the 40's and 50's. And the modern updates on the genre always interest me also, though many of them are worse than pulp, instead they are bad remakes of pulp.
The problem for me in the class, however, has always been that students do not share my love of these early noirs. The Asphalt Jungle is one of my all time favorites, but students dislike it for some as yet undivined reason. So, this year I am going to solve the problem beforehand.
It's very simple: You either love "The Asphalt Jungle" or else. I am not threatening anyone, of course, but the last film should suffice as a "word to the wise." So, should you trash this film, either in class or on your blog, and should you subsequently find yourself standing across a saloon from me begging for mercy because you are unarmed, because you "ain't drunk," because you're "building a house," because you brought me a pony, because you "ain't given to wickedness in a regular way," because you "ain't like that anymore" because you "don't deserve this" then I will respond with two actions. First, I will say, "deserve ain't got nothing to do with it." And then I will... er, hmm ...
We'll leave the second action unmentioned, because, after all, "The Asphalt Jungle" will prove absolutely riveting and immensely entertaining to all.
The problem for me in the class, however, has always been that students do not share my love of these early noirs. The Asphalt Jungle is one of my all time favorites, but students dislike it for some as yet undivined reason. So, this year I am going to solve the problem beforehand.
It's very simple: You either love "The Asphalt Jungle" or else. I am not threatening anyone, of course, but the last film should suffice as a "word to the wise." So, should you trash this film, either in class or on your blog, and should you subsequently find yourself standing across a saloon from me begging for mercy because you are unarmed, because you "ain't drunk," because you're "building a house," because you brought me a pony, because you "ain't given to wickedness in a regular way," because you "ain't like that anymore" because you "don't deserve this" then I will respond with two actions. First, I will say, "deserve ain't got nothing to do with it." And then I will... er, hmm ...
We'll leave the second action unmentioned, because, after all, "The Asphalt Jungle" will prove absolutely riveting and immensely entertaining to all.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Student faves
I posted this on my other blog on my birthday in 2009. I hope you don't mind that I poach from my own work. I don't think it's plagiarism, if I was the original author.
===============================================
I can think of several films that are named every year as absolute "must see" films by students. Here they are:
1. Requieum for a Dream
2. American History X
3. Fight Club
4. Shawshank Redemption
I liked the last two very much. Both are very professional films made with great skill. The story, script, direction, acting etc. on Fight Club and Shawshank are first rate. I have given my reasons why I thought Shawshank ultimately was disappointing, but that does not mean I disliked it. My feeling is that it could have been more than it was. But, it was good. Fight Club also was very entertaining and thought-provoking.
Now, the first two are less slick. They are both either actual indie films, or at least have the low budget, down and dirty look of the Indie. Hence, they should be judged on a slightly different basis. After all, money should be able to buy a certain level of professionalism.
It's been years since I saw American History X, but I found it to be rather boring, and I did not watch to the end. I thought Ed Norton, or whatever his name is, had way too many long-winded speeches.
Now, on to Requieum for a Dream. I liked the first half hour very much. I thought the acting, pacing, quirky effects, overall theme, were all done very well. But I thought the film basically fell apart in the last half because it became a melodrama. Melodrama refers to overly sensational plot driven vehicles, where character development is sacrificed to plot. All sorts of horrible things occur because the director decrees that it be so. When Will Munny kills Little Bill in Unforgiven, it is becuase he must do so based upon our intimate understanding of his character. No other action is possible. But when the main character in RfaD injects himself directly into a disgusting festering abscess in his arm, we ask ourselves, "don't you have another arm?"
Thus, a good film descends into melodrama, and fails to convince.
However, I know how difficult it is to make a good movie, and I give it a lot of points for effort. An example is the special effect the director uses to show us the experience of getting high on heroin. A close-up of an eyeball with the iris contracting with psychedelic visions in the background is very clever and unique when we see it the first time. After it is shown the 23rd time, it becomes tiresome. One might argue that that is the point. Heroin addicts have to shoot up constantly. That must be awfully repetitive and tiresome also. My point here is that I thought the director tried something pretty cool, but failed in the end.
But why does this film appeal to 17 year olds so strongly, while it left this 42 year old unmoved? The answer, of course, is that I see things clearly and you youngsters are blind, but you do outnumber me, thus I will entertain the (absurdly remote) possibility that I have missed something.
I'm rambling here a bit, but it's late and I'll go on. Years ago, I used to watch Siskel and Ebert, and I found that if they both raved about a film, it was a good bet. If only one of them went for it, I stayed away. The same may be true with us. I know we're all way up there in the IQ department. But the age differnce is a big gulf. So, if we both really rave about a film, you can bet on it being great.
After class today, Nick stayed behind for a few minutes and commented on how much he liked Unforgiven. His comments echoed my own sentiments to a tee. The subtlety with which Will Munny starts sipping at the whisky bottle. Another director would have had him announce portentously, "Hand me that bottle, Kid." He would have taken an enormous draught as a dramatic musical cresscendo erupted in the background. The other day in class, I mentioned that film analysis is as much about seeing what is NOT present as it is in seeing what is. Nick saw what didn't happen. Anyway, the meeting of the minds between the 17 year old and the 38 year old was gratifying and satisfying. I hope the rest of you enjoyed Unforgiven as much. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, if you get a chance to write this weekend.
Our next film is one that students almost universally hate.... and I absolutely love. Every year the class tells me that this film is their least favorite. And every year I tell them that they are a bunch of ignorant bozo's who should never have been allowed to leave the circus sideshow.. But this year will be different. You people are not savages. YOu will recognize the greatness of "The Asphalt Jungle."
Oh, apropos of nothing at all, today is my birthday. I was born on April 24th, 1975.
===============================================
I can think of several films that are named every year as absolute "must see" films by students. Here they are:
1. Requieum for a Dream
2. American History X
3. Fight Club
4. Shawshank Redemption
I liked the last two very much. Both are very professional films made with great skill. The story, script, direction, acting etc. on Fight Club and Shawshank are first rate. I have given my reasons why I thought Shawshank ultimately was disappointing, but that does not mean I disliked it. My feeling is that it could have been more than it was. But, it was good. Fight Club also was very entertaining and thought-provoking.
Now, the first two are less slick. They are both either actual indie films, or at least have the low budget, down and dirty look of the Indie. Hence, they should be judged on a slightly different basis. After all, money should be able to buy a certain level of professionalism.
It's been years since I saw American History X, but I found it to be rather boring, and I did not watch to the end. I thought Ed Norton, or whatever his name is, had way too many long-winded speeches.
Now, on to Requieum for a Dream. I liked the first half hour very much. I thought the acting, pacing, quirky effects, overall theme, were all done very well. But I thought the film basically fell apart in the last half because it became a melodrama. Melodrama refers to overly sensational plot driven vehicles, where character development is sacrificed to plot. All sorts of horrible things occur because the director decrees that it be so. When Will Munny kills Little Bill in Unforgiven, it is becuase he must do so based upon our intimate understanding of his character. No other action is possible. But when the main character in RfaD injects himself directly into a disgusting festering abscess in his arm, we ask ourselves, "don't you have another arm?"
Thus, a good film descends into melodrama, and fails to convince.
However, I know how difficult it is to make a good movie, and I give it a lot of points for effort. An example is the special effect the director uses to show us the experience of getting high on heroin. A close-up of an eyeball with the iris contracting with psychedelic visions in the background is very clever and unique when we see it the first time. After it is shown the 23rd time, it becomes tiresome. One might argue that that is the point. Heroin addicts have to shoot up constantly. That must be awfully repetitive and tiresome also. My point here is that I thought the director tried something pretty cool, but failed in the end.
But why does this film appeal to 17 year olds so strongly, while it left this 42 year old unmoved? The answer, of course, is that I see things clearly and you youngsters are blind, but you do outnumber me, thus I will entertain the (absurdly remote) possibility that I have missed something.
I'm rambling here a bit, but it's late and I'll go on. Years ago, I used to watch Siskel and Ebert, and I found that if they both raved about a film, it was a good bet. If only one of them went for it, I stayed away. The same may be true with us. I know we're all way up there in the IQ department. But the age differnce is a big gulf. So, if we both really rave about a film, you can bet on it being great.
After class today, Nick stayed behind for a few minutes and commented on how much he liked Unforgiven. His comments echoed my own sentiments to a tee. The subtlety with which Will Munny starts sipping at the whisky bottle. Another director would have had him announce portentously, "Hand me that bottle, Kid." He would have taken an enormous draught as a dramatic musical cresscendo erupted in the background. The other day in class, I mentioned that film analysis is as much about seeing what is NOT present as it is in seeing what is. Nick saw what didn't happen. Anyway, the meeting of the minds between the 17 year old and the 38 year old was gratifying and satisfying. I hope the rest of you enjoyed Unforgiven as much. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, if you get a chance to write this weekend.
Our next film is one that students almost universally hate.... and I absolutely love. Every year the class tells me that this film is their least favorite. And every year I tell them that they are a bunch of ignorant bozo's who should never have been allowed to leave the circus sideshow.. But this year will be different. You people are not savages. YOu will recognize the greatness of "The Asphalt Jungle."
Oh, apropos of nothing at all, today is my birthday. I was born on April 24th, 1975.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Guns, so far.
"On account of my Schofield model Smith and Wesson revovler."
"I see you still have that Spenser rifle."
"Did you load my Remington?"
"I have a Peacemaker, Bill"
"I'll have that .32, Bob."
"That Walker Colt blew up in his hand."
"If old Corky really had two guns, instead of ..."
"I see you still have that Spenser rifle."
"Did you load my Remington?"
"I have a Peacemaker, Bill"
"I'll have that .32, Bob."
"That Walker Colt blew up in his hand."
"If old Corky really had two guns, instead of ..."
Monday, November 15, 2010
Production of Seventh Seal
Our film was made in just one month during the summer of 1957. I imagine that gorgous sun filled days like the one at the beginning, and again today, during the so-called "wild strawberry" scene, are rare in Sweden. So, Bergman probably had to shoot fast or lose it. The film was shot on a minimal budget, with his ensemble of actors, all of whom would appear in a number of his films.
Max von Sydow, who plays the knight, went on to become a very successful actor in America. Bergman dropped him from his troupe permanently when he said no to appearing in a film because of his Hollywood commitments.
Gunnar Bjornstrum (sp) who plays the squire, Jons, also was a regular. I'm not sure he ever had a better part than this one. His raw masculinity and physicality jump out at the viewer.. Since I am more inclined to admire feminine beauty than the masculine variety, I am on unfamiliar ground here, but my intuition tells me that a female viewer might find him rather alluring. I defer to my female readers to either confirm or deny my intuition here.
His female leads tended to change more swiftly as he moved from one conquest/romance to the next. Live Ullman was his most famous to Americans, and she became very famous here, but the most beautiful was probably Bibi Andersen, who plays Mia. She is quite dazzling in a very simple and innocent way. One can imagine her being quite amazing should she dress her self up for a sexier role. But, Bergman didn't want that here. She is emblematic of the simple feminine ideal.
I forget the name of the guy who plays death. But, he's a famous Swedish actor in one of his last roles. The audience in Sweden recognized him very well.
Tomorrow, we will see a big fire. All the forest scenes were filmed either on a set, or in the small wooded area adjacent to the studio. Turn camera to left or right and you'd see a parking lot. But Bergman succeeds in creating a dark, primordial forest filled with evil spirits and danger. The fire raged out of control and the fire department arrived. Neighbors were furious since their houses and cars were covered with ash. The actors had to flee and he almost failed to finish shooting the scene.
Max von Sydow, who plays the knight, went on to become a very successful actor in America. Bergman dropped him from his troupe permanently when he said no to appearing in a film because of his Hollywood commitments.
Gunnar Bjornstrum (sp) who plays the squire, Jons, also was a regular. I'm not sure he ever had a better part than this one. His raw masculinity and physicality jump out at the viewer.. Since I am more inclined to admire feminine beauty than the masculine variety, I am on unfamiliar ground here, but my intuition tells me that a female viewer might find him rather alluring. I defer to my female readers to either confirm or deny my intuition here.
His female leads tended to change more swiftly as he moved from one conquest/romance to the next. Live Ullman was his most famous to Americans, and she became very famous here, but the most beautiful was probably Bibi Andersen, who plays Mia. She is quite dazzling in a very simple and innocent way. One can imagine her being quite amazing should she dress her self up for a sexier role. But, Bergman didn't want that here. She is emblematic of the simple feminine ideal.
I forget the name of the guy who plays death. But, he's a famous Swedish actor in one of his last roles. The audience in Sweden recognized him very well.
Tomorrow, we will see a big fire. All the forest scenes were filmed either on a set, or in the small wooded area adjacent to the studio. Turn camera to left or right and you'd see a parking lot. But Bergman succeeds in creating a dark, primordial forest filled with evil spirits and danger. The fire raged out of control and the fire department arrived. Neighbors were furious since their houses and cars were covered with ash. The actors had to flee and he almost failed to finish shooting the scene.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Unstoppable
Was it Victor or Peter who said that Unstoppable was a remake of Runaway Train? Well, whoever it was, he was wrong. I saw it tonight, and it is nothing of the kind. It does involve a runaway train, but there's no prison, or Manichean universe, or Existential meditation. Just an action film with a train. In fact, the way I'd describe the difference is that Runaway Train was not about the train at all. This is not about anything else but the train. I encourage you to see it. It's very exciting, but it reveals quite starkly, the difference between a great work of art, and formula pulp.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Some thoughts on The Seventh Seal
I have always considered it a great privilege to share this film with a class. It has affected me deeply since I first saw it when I was ten years old, or so, on Channel 13, when they showed the entire Janus Film collection of great foreign films over the course of two years or so back in 1970. I may not have understood much of it, but the subject matter, and the sublime imagery captivated me.
Like Runaway Train, the quotable quotes come fast and furious. Squire Jons get almost all the best lines. Let me think of a few:
1. Our Crusade was so stupid, it could only have been thought up by an idealist.
2. A skull is more interesting than a naked woman.
3. They don't really expect modern people to believe that rubbish.
4. You, with the fat nose, will you continue to pollute the earth for another year?
Better ones come later.
Oh, here's a question for you: How does the film end? Answer in comment below.
Like Runaway Train, the quotable quotes come fast and furious. Squire Jons get almost all the best lines. Let me think of a few:
1. Our Crusade was so stupid, it could only have been thought up by an idealist.
2. A skull is more interesting than a naked woman.
3. They don't really expect modern people to believe that rubbish.
4. You, with the fat nose, will you continue to pollute the earth for another year?
Better ones come later.
Oh, here's a question for you: How does the film end? Answer in comment below.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Win, Lose, what's the difference
I have seen Runaway Train about 30 times, and each time the ending just blows me away. For anyone who is a fan of action films and raves about Speed, or Indiana Jones, or that recent one by the guy who did Titanic. I honestly forget the name of the film, and I refused to see it on principle. Anyway, tell people who rave about mediocre action films to see this one. I don't know any film where the action is more exciting, and yet the characters are as compelling as any serious drama. Add to it a multi-layered existentialist meditation and some of the greatest acting (in parts) of any film, and I'm not certain why this film isn't on virtually everyone's top ten all time great list.
But, all great works of art are flawed in some way. Moby Dick is perhaps the greatest American novel. And yet, it is a mess. But, what book captures the essence of life quite the way Moby Dick does? Whenever I get overly depressed I recall Ishmael's famous caution, "stare not too long into the fire, oh man. There is a wisdom that is woe, but there is a woe that is madness."
For your blogs, you may want to write about whether the film argues that man has freedom of choice in life. Another theme in the film, is sh*t. Think of how many times something scatalogical is mentioned, or worse. In a film like this, there are no "gratuitous" elements. If the characters escape through a sewer, there's a reason. Think of every reference to "it." And then figure out why the writers piled it so high.
Another question: Why all the references to technology? And why is the assistant always eating, drinking, taking pills, etc. And Ruby. What is her role? Thematically, I mean.
But, all great works of art are flawed in some way. Moby Dick is perhaps the greatest American novel. And yet, it is a mess. But, what book captures the essence of life quite the way Moby Dick does? Whenever I get overly depressed I recall Ishmael's famous caution, "stare not too long into the fire, oh man. There is a wisdom that is woe, but there is a woe that is madness."
For your blogs, you may want to write about whether the film argues that man has freedom of choice in life. Another theme in the film, is sh*t. Think of how many times something scatalogical is mentioned, or worse. In a film like this, there are no "gratuitous" elements. If the characters escape through a sewer, there's a reason. Think of every reference to "it." And then figure out why the writers piled it so high.
Another question: Why all the references to technology? And why is the assistant always eating, drinking, taking pills, etc. And Ruby. What is her role? Thematically, I mean.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Letter to myself.
Dear Mr. Bennett:
I'm surprised you're not developing a resentment. After all, you're spending hours commenting on every single blog post written by 34 students, which, if the machine ran well, would mean about 75 comments per week. Meanwhile, when you write a post, you're lucky if one person comments, and that one person is always the same person. The class is certainly treating you shabbily.
But, look at the bright side. The very same lack of consideration that you're experiencing will enable you to continue to crow that your generation was vastly superior to this one, and that you would never have acted so disgracefully "back in the day." So, instead of being annoyed, thank the class for their lack of manners. It is the perfect tonic for your smug self satisfaction, a veritable elixir for that ego you nurture so lovingly.
You are right, of course. You knew it all along, but now you're certain.
Yours truly,
I'm surprised you're not developing a resentment. After all, you're spending hours commenting on every single blog post written by 34 students, which, if the machine ran well, would mean about 75 comments per week. Meanwhile, when you write a post, you're lucky if one person comments, and that one person is always the same person. The class is certainly treating you shabbily.
But, look at the bright side. The very same lack of consideration that you're experiencing will enable you to continue to crow that your generation was vastly superior to this one, and that you would never have acted so disgracefully "back in the day." So, instead of being annoyed, thank the class for their lack of manners. It is the perfect tonic for your smug self satisfaction, a veritable elixir for that ego you nurture so lovingly.
You are right, of course. You knew it all along, but now you're certain.
Yours truly,
Runaway Train
This film is among my all time favorites. One of the things I like about it is that it isn't overly polished. 1985 was the end of an era in Hollywood. After this time, even the most mediocre film enjoyed the most elegant production values. I like it that this film isn't so glitzy. It's raw, just like the topic.
You should know that I am absolutely dying to stop the film every two seconds to point something out. Ilya saw one of the things I was going to pause on. Have you noticed the physical similarity between Rankin and Manny? How about Rankin's line, "I know this guy, he'd do the same thing I'd do." There is a link between these to characters. One represents good, one evil. One is the law, the other an outlaw. But, which one is which?
So, why does Manny suddenly become decisive about which train to jump on? At first, he tells Buck that they need to take care because, "I don't wanna go to a parking lot." Then, he sees a train and says, "I want it." What is that all about? I'll give you a hint. Read all seven of the ideas of Existentialism on the sheet I gave you. Ask yourself which one directly applies to Manny's decision with regard to the train. Post in a comment below.
You should know that I am absolutely dying to stop the film every two seconds to point something out. Ilya saw one of the things I was going to pause on. Have you noticed the physical similarity between Rankin and Manny? How about Rankin's line, "I know this guy, he'd do the same thing I'd do." There is a link between these to characters. One represents good, one evil. One is the law, the other an outlaw. But, which one is which?
So, why does Manny suddenly become decisive about which train to jump on? At first, he tells Buck that they need to take care because, "I don't wanna go to a parking lot." Then, he sees a train and says, "I want it." What is that all about? I'll give you a hint. Read all seven of the ideas of Existentialism on the sheet I gave you. Ask yourself which one directly applies to Manny's decision with regard to the train. Post in a comment below.
Monday, November 1, 2010
A Comedy
A juvenile, yet amusing little comedy that I have indulged in many times over the years goes as follows:
Scene: 2nd period class.
Me: This class is so intelligent! You people really are very superior. I really love this class so much. In fact, it is my favorite class of the day, maybe my favorite class ever. Such a contrast to my 6th period class. Those guys are a little, well, how shall I put it... um, well, let's say they're missing something. Just not up to my rigorous standards. But, pleeeeease. Don't tell them I said this. They get discouraged easily. I have to treat them with kid gloves.
Class: Every face beams with delight.
Act II:
Setting: 6th Period class.
Me: This class is so intelligent! You people really are very superior. I really love this class so much. In fact, it is my favorite class of the day, maybe my favorite class ever. Such a contrast to my 2nd period class. Those guys are a little, well, how shall I put it... um, well, let's say they're missing something. Just not up to my rigorous standards. But, pleeeeease. Don't tell them I said this. They get discouraged easily. I have to treat them with kid gloves.
Class: Every face, but one, beams with delight
Kid in back: Hey, that's what you told the 2nd period class! You told them we were stupid!
Me: That is ridiculous. First of all, I would never make such a disparaging remark about my students. But, I did tell them I liked them better than you guys. But it was a white lie. I actually like you people much much better. That class is really sort of a grind for me. This class has a certain joie de vivre that is irresistable. Can't you just feel the love? This class is my favorite. Discussion over. But, please. Don't say anything to 2nd period. They're very sensitive.
Act III:
Setting: 2nd Period class.
Class: (in tones of outrage) You lied to us! You told the 6th period class that you loved them more than us. You better explain yourself very quickly or we're going to be very upset with you.
Me: It's true. I told them that. But I had to. One of you little squealing tattle-tales had to go and tell them that I said you were my favorite. They were justifiably annoyed. I had to cover up. So I told them that I really loved them more but I had told you guys that so you wouldn't feel bad about being so pathetic. In reality, it is they who are the pathetic ones. This class is truly exceptional. Can't you just feel the love?
Class: (Scratching their heads).
Act IV:
Setting: 6th period class
Class: You are the lowest form of life on earth! How can you stab us in the back like this? You hate us and you love them? You have exactly 10 seconds to explain yourself before we begin ripping your worthless carcass into little pieces.
Me. Now now, my little cabbages, how can you have such little faith in me? One of you little rascals had to go and compare notes with the earlier class. Their feelings were hurt. I had to cover up. But, remember! This is my very favorite class of all!
Class: But, you said the same thing to them. How can we tell who you're lying to and to whom you are telling the truth?
Me: Easy. I am lying to them. I am telling you the truth. Surely you believe me.
Class: How can we tell, though? Maybe you're lying to us.
Me. You have to trust your intuition. Look around the class. Look at all the wonderful people in this class. Now, how can I not love you best of all? It is not possible. Is it? Look around and tell me?
Class: (looking around the room, nodding their heads. A look of smug satisfaction comes over each and every face."
Me: Now let's not have any more of this nonsense. I have a class to teach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You might be interested, dear readers, to know that I never participate in that little game if I do actually have a preference, which, by the way, is exceedingly rare. All the classes are lovable in their own way. And since I enjoy the experience of being with a class immensely, the fact is that the one that's in front of me is always my favorite. I guess that doesn't say much for my loyalty, but one loves a group in a different way than one loves an individual.. Thus, all my declarations of undying devotion were true at the moment I uttered them. And let me say right now that you are my very favorite reader of this blog. I love you! Mwah.
Scene: 2nd period class.
Me: This class is so intelligent! You people really are very superior. I really love this class so much. In fact, it is my favorite class of the day, maybe my favorite class ever. Such a contrast to my 6th period class. Those guys are a little, well, how shall I put it... um, well, let's say they're missing something. Just not up to my rigorous standards. But, pleeeeease. Don't tell them I said this. They get discouraged easily. I have to treat them with kid gloves.
Class: Every face beams with delight.
Act II:
Setting: 6th Period class.
Me: This class is so intelligent! You people really are very superior. I really love this class so much. In fact, it is my favorite class of the day, maybe my favorite class ever. Such a contrast to my 2nd period class. Those guys are a little, well, how shall I put it... um, well, let's say they're missing something. Just not up to my rigorous standards. But, pleeeeease. Don't tell them I said this. They get discouraged easily. I have to treat them with kid gloves.
Class: Every face, but one, beams with delight
Kid in back: Hey, that's what you told the 2nd period class! You told them we were stupid!
Me: That is ridiculous. First of all, I would never make such a disparaging remark about my students. But, I did tell them I liked them better than you guys. But it was a white lie. I actually like you people much much better. That class is really sort of a grind for me. This class has a certain joie de vivre that is irresistable. Can't you just feel the love? This class is my favorite. Discussion over. But, please. Don't say anything to 2nd period. They're very sensitive.
Act III:
Setting: 2nd Period class.
Class: (in tones of outrage) You lied to us! You told the 6th period class that you loved them more than us. You better explain yourself very quickly or we're going to be very upset with you.
Me: It's true. I told them that. But I had to. One of you little squealing tattle-tales had to go and tell them that I said you were my favorite. They were justifiably annoyed. I had to cover up. So I told them that I really loved them more but I had told you guys that so you wouldn't feel bad about being so pathetic. In reality, it is they who are the pathetic ones. This class is truly exceptional. Can't you just feel the love?
Class: (Scratching their heads).
Act IV:
Setting: 6th period class
Class: You are the lowest form of life on earth! How can you stab us in the back like this? You hate us and you love them? You have exactly 10 seconds to explain yourself before we begin ripping your worthless carcass into little pieces.
Me. Now now, my little cabbages, how can you have such little faith in me? One of you little rascals had to go and compare notes with the earlier class. Their feelings were hurt. I had to cover up. But, remember! This is my very favorite class of all!
Class: But, you said the same thing to them. How can we tell who you're lying to and to whom you are telling the truth?
Me: Easy. I am lying to them. I am telling you the truth. Surely you believe me.
Class: How can we tell, though? Maybe you're lying to us.
Me. You have to trust your intuition. Look around the class. Look at all the wonderful people in this class. Now, how can I not love you best of all? It is not possible. Is it? Look around and tell me?
Class: (looking around the room, nodding their heads. A look of smug satisfaction comes over each and every face."
Me: Now let's not have any more of this nonsense. I have a class to teach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You might be interested, dear readers, to know that I never participate in that little game if I do actually have a preference, which, by the way, is exceedingly rare. All the classes are lovable in their own way. And since I enjoy the experience of being with a class immensely, the fact is that the one that's in front of me is always my favorite. I guess that doesn't say much for my loyalty, but one loves a group in a different way than one loves an individual.. Thus, all my declarations of undying devotion were true at the moment I uttered them. And let me say right now that you are my very favorite reader of this blog. I love you! Mwah.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The class Gels.
The expression, "to gel" refers to something coming together in some meaningful way. Classes either come together, or they don't. For me, the class has gelled.
I recall my very worst film class. It was many years ago. Before you were born, in fact. Well, maybe not that long ago, but almost. 1996.
I just couldn't get people interested, and almost nobody would answer any questions, or give any indication that they were enjoying the films. I would ask questions, and, unless I asked the one student who was alive and awake, I just couldn't get an answer.
In fact, I lost my temper at one point, which is never a good idea. By "lost my temper" I don't mean I barked at everyone, or made a mean face, or threatened to defenestrate several particularly onerous malefactors. That's not "losing my temper." That's called "effective teaching." A good teacher does that every other day. After all, there is no other way to control the terrorist organization that is a class of 34 teenagers.
I mean I flipped out and turned over a desk and ranted and raved and generally made a thorough fool of myself. Naturally, such a display of childish petulance did nothing to endear me to an already alienated class, and one shouldn't imagine for a moment that the level of class participation increased as a result of my exuberance. After all, how can students participate when they're all hiding in the coat closet?
No, that class never gelled.
By the way, the one student who provided the silver lining around that dark, malevolent, thunderhead was none other than Mr. Manzo! He saved the day for me, and I've always loved him for it, even when I'm making fun of him, or yelling at him for not keeping up with me when we both teach Global 1. Yes. Mr. Manzo was, without a doubt, the most enthusiastic student I've ever taught. (Notice I chose my adjective carefully) Homework was never his strongest suit, but I would trade 100 conscientious scribblers for one Mr. Manzo. Because he possessed (and possesses) the one single quality in a scholar that I value and admire more than all others. He is endlessly curioius and fascinated and always wants to learn more about whatever topic is being covered. I taught him AP European history, AP Government, Economics, Film, and Military history. And it didn't matter if the subject was the Atomic Bomb or the lesson was a bomb, the entire class could have been fast asleep, but there he was, sitting bolt upright, listening, nodding, asking, answering, analyzing, synthesizing.... As a student, and now, as a teacher and administrator, the man is pure gold.
But, I digress.
It's not in my nature to be overly complimentary. I think it is the result of my Jesuit education. It could also be because I'm smarter than everyone else, but my wife assures me that I am deluded in that regard. However, I'd like to say that members of this film class has provided original analysis, on more than a few occassions. This is really remarkable, and my hat is off to the whole gang. I say it's remarkable because I've been teaching these films to very, very bright students for 20 years! One would think that anything you can say about Citizen Kane, has been said. Yet, today alone, several students provided insights that neither I nor any of the thousand or so film students I've taught over the years articulated.
Suffice it to say I'm very pleased so far with the level of discourse in class.
Now, let's see if we can't get those blogs cranking. I like my Jell-O in double helpings.
I recall my very worst film class. It was many years ago. Before you were born, in fact. Well, maybe not that long ago, but almost. 1996.
I just couldn't get people interested, and almost nobody would answer any questions, or give any indication that they were enjoying the films. I would ask questions, and, unless I asked the one student who was alive and awake, I just couldn't get an answer.
In fact, I lost my temper at one point, which is never a good idea. By "lost my temper" I don't mean I barked at everyone, or made a mean face, or threatened to defenestrate several particularly onerous malefactors. That's not "losing my temper." That's called "effective teaching." A good teacher does that every other day. After all, there is no other way to control the terrorist organization that is a class of 34 teenagers.
I mean I flipped out and turned over a desk and ranted and raved and generally made a thorough fool of myself. Naturally, such a display of childish petulance did nothing to endear me to an already alienated class, and one shouldn't imagine for a moment that the level of class participation increased as a result of my exuberance. After all, how can students participate when they're all hiding in the coat closet?
No, that class never gelled.
By the way, the one student who provided the silver lining around that dark, malevolent, thunderhead was none other than Mr. Manzo! He saved the day for me, and I've always loved him for it, even when I'm making fun of him, or yelling at him for not keeping up with me when we both teach Global 1. Yes. Mr. Manzo was, without a doubt, the most enthusiastic student I've ever taught. (Notice I chose my adjective carefully) Homework was never his strongest suit, but I would trade 100 conscientious scribblers for one Mr. Manzo. Because he possessed (and possesses) the one single quality in a scholar that I value and admire more than all others. He is endlessly curioius and fascinated and always wants to learn more about whatever topic is being covered. I taught him AP European history, AP Government, Economics, Film, and Military history. And it didn't matter if the subject was the Atomic Bomb or the lesson was a bomb, the entire class could have been fast asleep, but there he was, sitting bolt upright, listening, nodding, asking, answering, analyzing, synthesizing.... As a student, and now, as a teacher and administrator, the man is pure gold.
But, I digress.
It's not in my nature to be overly complimentary. I think it is the result of my Jesuit education. It could also be because I'm smarter than everyone else, but my wife assures me that I am deluded in that regard. However, I'd like to say that members of this film class has provided original analysis, on more than a few occassions. This is really remarkable, and my hat is off to the whole gang. I say it's remarkable because I've been teaching these films to very, very bright students for 20 years! One would think that anything you can say about Citizen Kane, has been said. Yet, today alone, several students provided insights that neither I nor any of the thousand or so film students I've taught over the years articulated.
Suffice it to say I'm very pleased so far with the level of discourse in class.
Now, let's see if we can't get those blogs cranking. I like my Jell-O in double helpings.
Monday, October 25, 2010
A Question for you. Not rhetorical.
Here's a question for you, apropos of nothing. Why do little kids love dinosaurs so much?
Well, not apropos of nothing for me. I was watching a show on dinosaurs and it got met thinking about them. The show used all sorts of computer animation to show dinosaurs. It wasn't as good as "Walking with Dinosaurs" which I recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it, but it was interesting. I'm always impressed with how much they can extrapolate from such little data. They're all like Sherlock Holmes, I think. Making huge conclusions on the basis of very small evidence. I believe it is called deductive reasoning. Anyway, answer my question in a comment. Why do little kids love dinosaurs?
Well, not apropos of nothing for me. I was watching a show on dinosaurs and it got met thinking about them. The show used all sorts of computer animation to show dinosaurs. It wasn't as good as "Walking with Dinosaurs" which I recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it, but it was interesting. I'm always impressed with how much they can extrapolate from such little data. They're all like Sherlock Holmes, I think. Making huge conclusions on the basis of very small evidence. I believe it is called deductive reasoning. Anyway, answer my question in a comment. Why do little kids love dinosaurs?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Names, quotes, thoughts...
A word about names. My recollection of the rules for what form of name to use in essays goes something like this. In journalism, a (real) man's name is cited in full the first time it appears in the body of a news article. Each subsequent time, he is referred to by his last name alone. A woman gets the full name first, then Ms. so and so each subsequent time. A woman's last name is never cited alone.
In fiction (or film) analysis, things are simpler. Just use the form of the name most common in the film. Familiarity is not allowed in journalism, but it is welcome in analysis. A first reference might be full name. After that, simple is best. In Citizen Kane, one should refer to Kane, Susan Alexander, Jed Leland, Bernstein, (does he have a first name?) Thatcher, Kane's mother, Rosebud, the nurse, Thompson, the reporter.
Important also to separate the actor from the character. It would be bad form to say "Orson Welles says, "you provide the prose poems and I'll provide the war." In terms of the film, it is Kane who says that, not Orson Welles, despite the fact that Welles does mouth the words.
I have seen Citizen Kane so many times, that I have made it a habit to sprinkle my speech with phrases lifted from the film, always enunciated using the exact same cadence as that used by Kane, or whomever. Most of my listeners are oblivious as to the reference, but my wife always knows. Here are some of them, but you won't recognize most of them yet.
1. A pack of money-mad pirates.
2. A wasted day.
3. My reasons satisfy me.
4. You're gonna need more than one lesson, and you're gonna get more than one
5. It’s an antique
6. To ... buy things.
7. We’re lucky. We live in a palace
8. Thanks for the use of the hall
9. That’s when you’ve gotta fight ‘em
10. Have the warden send me a letter
11. You can’t do this to me
12. Don't worry about me, Gettys.
13. And a happy new year
14. You’re awful funny aren’t ya?
15. Hmm… yes and no.
16. Impossible, Impossible
In fiction (or film) analysis, things are simpler. Just use the form of the name most common in the film. Familiarity is not allowed in journalism, but it is welcome in analysis. A first reference might be full name. After that, simple is best. In Citizen Kane, one should refer to Kane, Susan Alexander, Jed Leland, Bernstein, (does he have a first name?) Thatcher, Kane's mother, Rosebud, the nurse, Thompson, the reporter.
Important also to separate the actor from the character. It would be bad form to say "Orson Welles says, "you provide the prose poems and I'll provide the war." In terms of the film, it is Kane who says that, not Orson Welles, despite the fact that Welles does mouth the words.
I have seen Citizen Kane so many times, that I have made it a habit to sprinkle my speech with phrases lifted from the film, always enunciated using the exact same cadence as that used by Kane, or whomever. Most of my listeners are oblivious as to the reference, but my wife always knows. Here are some of them, but you won't recognize most of them yet.
1. A pack of money-mad pirates.
2. A wasted day.
3. My reasons satisfy me.
4. You're gonna need more than one lesson, and you're gonna get more than one
5. It’s an antique
6. To ... buy things.
7. We’re lucky. We live in a palace
8. Thanks for the use of the hall
9. That’s when you’ve gotta fight ‘em
10. Have the warden send me a letter
11. You can’t do this to me
12. Don't worry about me, Gettys.
13. And a happy new year
14. You’re awful funny aren’t ya?
15. Hmm… yes and no.
16. Impossible, Impossible
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Evolution of the class
I started teaching the Film class in the fall of '91 when the school needed an elective class for seniors. It was not truly elective since the seniors were dumped into it to fill out their schedule. This was in the old days when all students had a full schedule.
For whatever reason, the idea of only teaching film seemed somehow not kosher to me, so I taught a combination of film, poetry, literature and media stuff all dumped into general humanities course. The students were pretty tolerant of the whole affair, but there were one or two sour pusses I had to deal with. After all, their friends at New Dorp were going home at 11 and they were explicating Eliot's The Waste Land at 1:15, or reading Kafka's The Trial later that night. In year two, i decided to kick the other stuff to the curb and stick to film, but the films were going to have a historical component. Thus, All Quiet on the Western Front corresponded to the earlist period covered in American history part two, which we taugtht at the same time. In other words, I was teaching WW1 in my Am. His class and All Quiet in Film, to the same group of students.
It Happened One Night reveals some of the ideas and attitudes of the Great Depression, so I showed that. A unit on the Cold War included Dr. Strangelove, Atomic Cafe. Later on, I'd show Apocalypse Now as a Vietnam War movie, though it is really not about that in any meaningful way.
Over the years, though, the history imperative fell away, and I dropped the poetry, and just concentrated on great films, with great themes and showed them and analyzed them. I became interested in Existentialism around this time, probably because I had to teach it in a meaningful way in an AP European History class I was teaching. So, I started seeing existential themes in the films that I was already showing. I sometimes wonder if we can see whatever we want in a film, should our minds me leaning in that direction. Anyway, the idea of alienation, and finding meaning in a disordered universe started to jump out at me more and more from teh films I showed, and the ones that I saw and liked outside the class.
Here's the film list from the last time i taught the course. We may see most of these again, depending.
All Quiet
Citizen Kane
Midnight Cowboy
Runaway Train
Top Hat
The Seventh Seal
Unforgiven
Asphalt Jungle
Dark City
Memento
A Siimple Plan
Signs
Dr. Strangelove
Atomic Cafe
Other films that I've shown over the years:
Ed Wood
Apocalypse Now
Hearts of Darkness
It Happened one Night
Something Wicked This Way Comes
The Truman Show
A Clockwork Orange
Full M etal Jacket
Battleship Potemkin
For whatever reason, the idea of only teaching film seemed somehow not kosher to me, so I taught a combination of film, poetry, literature and media stuff all dumped into general humanities course. The students were pretty tolerant of the whole affair, but there were one or two sour pusses I had to deal with. After all, their friends at New Dorp were going home at 11 and they were explicating Eliot's The Waste Land at 1:15, or reading Kafka's The Trial later that night. In year two, i decided to kick the other stuff to the curb and stick to film, but the films were going to have a historical component. Thus, All Quiet on the Western Front corresponded to the earlist period covered in American history part two, which we taugtht at the same time. In other words, I was teaching WW1 in my Am. His class and All Quiet in Film, to the same group of students.
It Happened One Night reveals some of the ideas and attitudes of the Great Depression, so I showed that. A unit on the Cold War included Dr. Strangelove, Atomic Cafe. Later on, I'd show Apocalypse Now as a Vietnam War movie, though it is really not about that in any meaningful way.
Over the years, though, the history imperative fell away, and I dropped the poetry, and just concentrated on great films, with great themes and showed them and analyzed them. I became interested in Existentialism around this time, probably because I had to teach it in a meaningful way in an AP European History class I was teaching. So, I started seeing existential themes in the films that I was already showing. I sometimes wonder if we can see whatever we want in a film, should our minds me leaning in that direction. Anyway, the idea of alienation, and finding meaning in a disordered universe started to jump out at me more and more from teh films I showed, and the ones that I saw and liked outside the class.
Here's the film list from the last time i taught the course. We may see most of these again, depending.
All Quiet
Citizen Kane
Midnight Cowboy
Runaway Train
Top Hat
The Seventh Seal
Unforgiven
Asphalt Jungle
Dark City
Memento
A Siimple Plan
Signs
Dr. Strangelove
Atomic Cafe
Other films that I've shown over the years:
Ed Wood
Apocalypse Now
Hearts of Darkness
It Happened one Night
Something Wicked This Way Comes
The Truman Show
A Clockwork Orange
Full M etal Jacket
Battleship Potemkin
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Let's get with the program.
I'm surprised to see that I'm being "followed" by 37 bloggers when I only have 34 students. I know one of them is James Cassidy, my old friend, and alumnus of '09. But, who are the other two? Meanwhile I am only following about 31 blogs, so there are three bloggers out there who are opaque to me. If you're one of them, how about dropping me a line letting me know your internet address.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Bride of the Devil
What a coincidence. I was watching the above-titled film on TCM earlier tonight, and there was a scene where the two good guys visit a haunted house at night. Sure enough, one says to the other, "Let's split up. We can search the house faster that way." Remarkably, neither one was torn to shreds by a monster.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Ok. I tried to change the name of my blog, but was only partially successful. So, if you can change it, fine. If not, then I'll just have to live with superfly94. I'll need a scorecard, though to remember all you knuckleheads. For those of you procrastinating, please try to name your blog after yourself. Save your creativity for the actual posting.
The battle scene you watched today is one of the great achievements of early cinema. When this film came out in 1930, audiences were amazed at the realism of that battle scene. It is worth watching several times, (but we won't do that) simply to see all the clever strategies the director used to achieve his aim. Don't be fooled by the seeming chaos. Each and every action was carefully choreographed. As the camera moves over the trench, the actors have to know exactly what to do and when. Every imaginable act of trench violence is displayed, as soldiers are killed with rifles, revolvers, machine guns, bayonets, clubs, daggers, feet, etc. And remember also, those explosions are real. They are simulations only in that there is no shrapnel emanating from them. But, the "extras" who are running through that obstacle course are in grave danger of being blinded by flying debris, deafened by the explosions, slipping on mud, etc. Each man needs to know exactly where the explosives are planted and when they will detonate. They need eye and ear protection. One point to remember. In actual combat, explosions are also happening in the air above soldiers. Time fuzes were very sophisticated and could be set to detonate a shell in the air over the heads of its victim.
The sheer exhaustion of battle is one aspect that we rarely consider. Soldiers sleep very little at the front, and combat is very stressful to both mind and body. The director takes a moment at one point to linger over the men, showing them gasping for breath as they await the next onslaught.
I have seen this battle scene 50 times and it never fails to impress me for its creativity, attention to detail, and sheer unrelenting horror.
The battle scene you watched today is one of the great achievements of early cinema. When this film came out in 1930, audiences were amazed at the realism of that battle scene. It is worth watching several times, (but we won't do that) simply to see all the clever strategies the director used to achieve his aim. Don't be fooled by the seeming chaos. Each and every action was carefully choreographed. As the camera moves over the trench, the actors have to know exactly what to do and when. Every imaginable act of trench violence is displayed, as soldiers are killed with rifles, revolvers, machine guns, bayonets, clubs, daggers, feet, etc. And remember also, those explosions are real. They are simulations only in that there is no shrapnel emanating from them. But, the "extras" who are running through that obstacle course are in grave danger of being blinded by flying debris, deafened by the explosions, slipping on mud, etc. Each man needs to know exactly where the explosives are planted and when they will detonate. They need eye and ear protection. One point to remember. In actual combat, explosions are also happening in the air above soldiers. Time fuzes were very sophisticated and could be set to detonate a shell in the air over the heads of its victim.
The sheer exhaustion of battle is one aspect that we rarely consider. Soldiers sleep very little at the front, and combat is very stressful to both mind and body. The director takes a moment at one point to linger over the men, showing them gasping for breath as they await the next onslaught.
I have seen this battle scene 50 times and it never fails to impress me for its creativity, attention to detail, and sheer unrelenting horror.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
A Failure to Communicate
I gave simple instructions. I repeated them the next day, pointing out how those simple instructions were not followed. The request? Please create a blog that has your name and the number 310 without spaces as your url, and create a user name using the same formula. Notice that my url is mrbennett310.blogspot.com and my user name is Mr. Bennett310.
Yet, I see that Ashray88 and Maxximum12 have joined bulldozereddy and FX894Fly. I am curious about the limits of educaation. Please comment below on why I am unable to motivate my students to follow what appears to me to be the simplest of instructions. The teacher asks to be educated. Please let me know how it is that I failed to achieve my goal in such a simple and straightforword matter. Don't hold back. I can take it.
Yet, I see that Ashray88 and Maxximum12 have joined bulldozereddy and FX894Fly. I am curious about the limits of educaation. Please comment below on why I am unable to motivate my students to follow what appears to me to be the simplest of instructions. The teacher asks to be educated. Please let me know how it is that I failed to achieve my goal in such a simple and straightforword matter. Don't hold back. I can take it.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Im Westen nichts Neues
Our first film, All Quiet on the Western Front, by Lewis Milestone, has been my perennial entree into the class. Though it has some definite negatives, namely it is rather primitive, B&W, dated acting (I won't say bad acting) slow pacing, pacifist left-wing message, it suits my purpose to a tee. And the purpose is to introduce the class to the elements of film. It's all there, and in a simple and direct style that is easy to identify and understand. The fact that the film is unquestionably an existential work just adds to the fun. (Did you notice that Paul prayed fervently to God that he not let Hans Kemmerich die? And Hans promptly dies. Oh dear. It may be a sobering semester) Oops. Did I give something away?? Sorry about that.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Film Class, Fall 2010
Welcome to yet another incarnation of my Film Class. I trust you will enjoy it. Over the years, I've gotten a lot of nice feedback on the class, and so, I have high expectations that this semester will also prove edifying and rewarding. Of course, we have a few impediments in our path, not the least of which is the obscenely early hour that we will be meeting.
But, I didn't twist anyone's arm. If the early hour is too much for you, then do the gracious thing, and bow out. There are a few kids who want to take the class, and they assure me that they live on London time.
The grading policy is based upon class participation and written assignments on your blog. All blogs should be linked to mine, and to each other. Hence, each student should be "following" 35 other blogs.
But, I didn't twist anyone's arm. If the early hour is too much for you, then do the gracious thing, and bow out. There are a few kids who want to take the class, and they assure me that they live on London time.
The grading policy is based upon class participation and written assignments on your blog. All blogs should be linked to mine, and to each other. Hence, each student should be "following" 35 other blogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)