background preloader


Related:  Cinema

What is the difference between The Hobbit and the news? Not as much as there should be | Charlie Brooker Quick, close your eyes for a second and picture the 1920s. What did you see? If you're anything like me, the projectionist in your head put on a newsreel consisting of black-and-white footage of flappers doing the Charleston, or a queue of men in flat caps patiently waiting for the great depression to kick off in earnest. And chances are the footage was jittery and slightly speeded-up. It's a curious testament to the power of moving pictures that you have to strain to remember that in reality, people walked at a normal pace back then. Our perception of eras seems chiefly dependent on the limitations of the technology that records them. Then in the 80s, our memories are transferred on to video, lending them a shiny, slightly tinny feel. Around 2005 things start making the transition to HD – and then we get to today, and a weird new trend is emerging.

************** — Keren Cytter Eli Evans plays chicken by Eli S. Evans There is a moment in Jean-Luc Godard’s 1966 Masculin Feminin in which the character played by a young and brilliant Jean-Pierre Léaud claims that one day at home while eating mashed potatoes his father discovered why the earth goes round the sun. “Galileo discovered it first,” he a moment later concedes, “but all of a sudden, just like that, my father had rediscovered why the earth goes round the sun exactly as Galileo did originally.” It’s a joke, of course – after all, one need not have specific knowledge of the work of Galileo in order to be living in a world organized in part according to the assumption that the “earth goes round the sun,” and in which that fact is therefore not something to be discovered but, if anything, only noticed. It’s all a bit maddening. Herzog during the filming of Burden of Dreams About the Author: Eli S.

Jan Bonny Undoing the Image Barbara Stanwyck as Phyllis Dietrichson in Double Indemnity, Paramount Pictures, 1944 by Paula Quigley Depending on your position, the phrase ‘film theory’ can refer either to a critical rigour informed by mainly European intellectual currents, or a ponderous and parasitic dependence on certain schools of thought, particularly psychoanalysis. There has of course always been a strong reaction against ‘Screen Theory’ ever since it became established. More recently, Bordwell has condemned the continuing trend for films to be evaluated on ideological rather than aesthetic grounds, giving rise to a situation where ‘For many film scholars and students, movies exist less as parts of an artistic tradition than as cultural products whose extractable ideas about race, class, gender, ethnicity, modernity, postmodernity, and so forth can be applauded or deplored’ (Bordwell 2005, 266). As such, the issue is not necessarily about rejecting or even homogenising ‘film theory’.

madcatlady 20:57 3:07 the pond - Duration: 3 minutes, 7 seconds. 3:32 meow - Duration: 3 minutes, 32 seconds. 6:28 Drow Tales - Duration: 6 minutes, 28 seconds. 2:47 Miss Steak - Duration: 2 minutes, 47 seconds. 4:23 Owly Hoot - Duration: 4 minutes, 23 seconds. 3:58 4:19 BabelSnail - Duration: 4 minutes, 19 seconds. View 30+ more This item has been hidden David A. Kirby: Hulk Smash Accurate Science! Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman as Thor and Jane Foster, Thor, Paramount Pictures, 2011 by David A. Kirby For most people, the start of the summer blockbuster season would not be an ideal time to be examining movies for their scientific verisimilitude. It may surprise people to learn that most contemporary filmmakers believe that scientific integrity is important. For those who are concerned about the science in cinema, this increase in the number of science consultants is a good thing. Are these scientific elements in Thor “accurate?” From Hulk title sequence, Universal Pictures, 2003 In light of the fantastic nature of many films, how do we determine the scientific “accuracy” for events or objects that do not even exist in the real world? So, what is the benefit of incorporating more appropriate cinematic science? I am not arguing that the integrity of the science in movies is irrelevant. About the Author: David A.

Jon Rafman We Hear the Sound of Splashing From Trainspotting, Miramax, 1996 by Julian Hanich In this essay [1] I try to categorize the range of artistic options that filmmakers currently have at hand to evoke bodily disgust. [2] Or, to reframe this approach in a slightly different manner: If we examine the variety of disgusting scenes at the movies, how can we usefully distinguish them? Now, to some readers this endeavour might sound baffling. This essay presents five categorical distinctions indicating choices filmmakers often implicitly make when disgust comes into play. [6] (1) Temporality: Does the filmmaker confront us with the disgusting object suddenly or anticipatorily? To another group of readers the middle-level question I am going to answer might not only be strange but utterly futile. The little film-critic we hide inside ourselves might hope for more nuanced, innovative ways to evoke affective states at the movies. Temporality: Sudden and Anticipatory Disgust From Jenifer, Dario Argento, 2005