|
12/21/2020 1 Comment Film- Jaws Jaws is quite possibly my favorite movie. The plot is so simple and has been imitated hundreds of times, but no imitation has ever come close to the original. In terms of film history, it is probably the second blockbuster after the Godfather three years earlier and the breakthrough first success for director Steven Speilberg. Speilberg is probably still the best known director in the world 50 years after he started. Speilberg comes from the generation of filmmakers that trained via film school. Earlier generations of filmmakers worked their way up to director and producer often through the apprentice model. An eager filmmaker would begin as an assistant, and learn the trade. Of course, the older generation of filmmakers that had “put in their time” did not immediately embrace the new, university-trained filmmakers. One thing that the older and younger generation of filmmakers and viewers could all agree on was that Jaws is a great film. The structure of Jaws is basically two parts. The first takes place on the island with a series of shark attacks. The second part takes place on the boat with the three protagonists trying to find and kill the shark. The part that audiences seem to remember best and the majority of the marketing hype comes from the first part, yet it is the second part that has more character interactions and subjective, or character-driven drama.  While Amity is not a real island, the film was made at Martha’s Vineyard off the coast of Cape Cod. My grandparents lived on the southern coast of Cape Cod for about 20 years and growing up, I would spend a lot of time there in the summer. I do not know for certain, but I can imagine that the filmmakers did not have to change or exaggerate much to get the Cape Cod feel of a small, tourism dependent town and the chaos of tourists coming off ferries. When I was about 15, I got to travel to Martha’s Vineyard and see the original movie locations, which was quite an exciting trip for me. One of the aspects of the film that still makes it hold up today is the fact that the shark is not seen for most of the film. What today is acknowledged as brilliant withholding of the shark in the spirit of sustaining suspense, was actually done due to technical difficulties. A large mechanical shark was built for the production, which the crew dubbed “Bruce”. The shark would work brilliantly out of water, but when it would be placed in the water, it broke down so many times that Speilberg was starting to worry if the film could be made at all. That’s when the idea came to barely show the shark. But this detail was not enough to make the film the classic that it became. The music of John Williams is as much to credit in the building of suspense as what we see on the screen. The basis of the Jaws theme is so simple, just two alternating notes a half step apart with a third lower note to provide accents. Williams has said that his inspiration for the simplicity of the theme was the primitive hunting instincts of the shark. While the rhythm of the theme is inspired by heartbeats with a pulse that gets faster and faster. For the first few attacks, the viewer never sees any part of the shark. The only way the viewer knows that the shark is present is the music and the reactions of characters. It is about an hour into the film before the viewer even sees the shark fin. Arguably, the part of the film that breaks the illusion of realism is at the very end, when the shark climbs onto the back of the boat and its movements are more mechanical than they are organic. Even so, the textured look of the mechanical shark still holds up much better than computer generated sharks of even high-quality imitations like Deep Blue Sea.  Although the characters of police chief Brody, marine biologist Hooper, and fisherman Quint are introduced before they board the boat together, it is when it is only the three on the boat that we get to know the characters best. The contrast between them is what makes it so believable when they have to work together. The educated Hooper acts on logic and scientific reasoning. He sees the shark as something to be studied. The working class Quint acts on instinct and personal experience. He sees the shark as a bounty or a job. Brody, who is afraid of water, and insists they get a bigger boat, is the balance between the two extremes. The function between them works as if they are different aspects of the same character.
In the years and decades that followed, the legacy of Jaws has been spoiled by three poor sequels and almost infinite imitators that feature not only sharks, but orcas, squid, piranhas, alligators, and sharknados… It is difficult for modern viewers to watch the original Jaws without the backstory of all the ripoffs lingering. If you can let go of the poor shark movies that you have seen, Jaws is a thrilling and moving experience. I still am not crazy about swimming in the ocean. That effect is fine filmmaking at its best.
1 Comment
 The origins of film comedy began with the birth of humankind. Comedy appeared the first time someone tripped over a log, the first time one person performed an impression of another, or the first time someone did something foolish and looked around to make sure that no one had seen it. Freud had explained how comedy is an alternative to repression of thoughts and actions that are taboo. Instead of holding back, comedy rewards an outward display of forbidden subjects through the safe expression of laughter. The comic character as an outsider—one that exists within society, but is not necessarily a part of it, is a common theme that recurs throughout the different eras of comedy. Perhaps the human tendency to seek heroes and role models is what draws people to many non-comic presentations. Throughout history the same comic characters, as well as similar situations and themes recur in notable comedies and across art forms—as some of the common threads that I have already mentioned that appear to be constant across many subgenres of comedy. Film reviewers and scholars form opinions about what makes a good film and what does not—often on the basis of critics and scholars of the past who have researched other forms of comedy. As I guide the reader through the various eras of comic presentation and comic theory, it will become apparent that critical views of particular comic works change over time, from favorable to unfavorable and vice versa. The section headings that I have chosen are a general way of demarcating different eras and distinct forms. For some sections, terms within the heading may pertain to different cultures or different artistic media in different ways, which the subheadings should clarify. Classical Comedy (Greece: 600~250 BC; Rome: 250 BC~100 AD) The first records of comedy and theories of comedy come from about 2,500 years ago. From the earliest examples of comic plays, one can see the foundations for contemporary film comedy. Since its birth, comedy has been the enjoyable, yet less praised sibling of Tragedy. One important thing to understand about the first comedies is that they began as private exhibitions for the wealthy, much like Classical music of the Eighteenth Century. Only later did playwrights present comedies for the public, a change that critically marks a shift in favor of comedy, recontextualized for the masses. We will see this difference once again when we examine film comedy specifically, for some films seem to appeal only to critics while some capture audiences and disappoint critics. Certainly, presentations of comedy occurred across the world before the first records in ancient Greece, but unfortunately, it is impossible to analyze directly the ancient comedies that have continued through oral tradition. Traditionally, we separate the styles of Classical comedy into Old Comedy, Middle Comedy, and New Comedy. Old Comedy During this period, intellectuals began to write about comedy. Already, different styles of comic characters appear. One is the clumsy buffoon that does not fit within the society—a pariah. It is important to realize, however, that in Ancient Greece, it would have been more respectable to exist in society as someone to be mocked than to face exile from the society. Another is the more refined character that relies on verbal rather than physical comedy. The reader may note that the comic character did not exist for its own purpose, but rather as an obstacle to test the hero—an almost proto-taboo figure. In addition to these two distinct comic types, we also find the first examples of the “straight-man”. The straightman serves to contrast with the comic characters so that the audience may have a point of reference by which to judge how funny the comic characters are. Aristophanes (ca. 446-386 BC) was the most prolific comic writer from this time period. However, his works did not find universal acceptance. His social criticism of Greek society actually caused him trouble. Scholars praise Aristophanes for the sentimental qualities of his comedies that he is able to elicit, much in the same way that they praise Chaplin. Both artists show that touching moments need not be removed from comedy. Aristophanes was one of the first playwrights to explore the potential of parody. Parody finds a source of comedy in mocking an original serious idea, instead of creating an original idea. Aristophanes assumes his audience has prior knowledge of the original work that he parodies. Middle Comedy After Aristophanes, Greek Comedy entered its second stage, now known as Middle Comedy. No major comic works of this period that will later influence film comedy vary from the conventions previously established in Old Comedy. However, during this time period, philosophers began to theorize about comedy and to create philosophies of comedy. By far the leading philosopher of this time period when it comes to many things, Aristotle never actually created a theory of comedy as he did for tragedy. New Comedy The New Comedy works present us with something drastically different from the Old and Middle Comedy. While plays hearkening back to the style of Old Comedy still existed, just as films in that style still exist, New Comedy presented a formula that clearly demarcated it from the qualities of the other styles of comedy. It is important for the reader to realize that this style of New Comedy did not end with Ancient Greece. Many scholars would argue that New Comedy never really died. It certainly can be found in many of the comedies of Shakespeare, the operas of Mozart, the films of Lubitsch and Cukor, and in the Screwball Comedies of the 1930s and 1940s. Litterateurs credit Menander (ca. 341-290 BC), the most prolific comedy writer of Greek New Comedy, with giving women a higher place in comedy. Throughout history, especially in the works of Shakespeare and Jane Austen, as well as in the Screwball Comedies, we find comedies in which a female character is no longer the object of comedy, but rather the instigator of comedy. The role of a female protagonist as a controller of the comedy is another theme that recurs across eras and subgenres of comedy. The fact that comedy allows for strong female characters also reminds us that comedy allows for what may be seditious topics at the time, such as women holding positions of authority in the Ancient World. Comedy only truly works when the audience expects to encounter a comedy. However, a joke can only work if the punch line is unexpected. As Menander’s Misanthrope teaches us, and so many film comedies echo, one must understand the conventions of comedy in order to appreciate comedy fully.  Roman Comedy Plautus was the first great Roman comedian. The key to understanding the negative attitude towards Plautus has to do with the fact that he wrote many of his plays for the purpose of receiving income, instead of for strictly artistic reasons. The commercial appeal/ aesthetic appeal debate is as old as art criticism itself and is most definitely still a factor for films. Plautus was extremely popular with audiences of the time. Time and again we see comedy as a way to safely criticize one’s own society.
Succeeding Plautus, Terence (Anglicized from Terentius) was highly influenced by the Greek comedies and became one of the most prolific Roman writers of comedy. One can see that ancient critics recognized the merits of comedy. Of the two Roman playwrights profiled here, Terence is closest in style to Menander. Throughout the different eras, we see how multiple styles of comedy enrich one another in any given era. For example, one could never confuse the comic style of Groucho Marx with that of Cary Grant. Regardless of which writer one may favor personally, scholars concede that both men created a style that succeeded and went on to influence later styles and eventually film comedies. The different comic approaches used by Plautus and Terence, helped to lay the foundations of the different subgenres of film comedy that exist today. Many scholars credit the writers of New Comedy in creating the conventions of romantic comedies, or what became the Screwball Comedies in the mid-1930s. Even in Ancient Rome, the comedy of manners became something distinctly different from the physical comedy, now known as slapstick. The zany situations and fast-paced banter define the former style, just as the pratfalls characterize the latter. While the contrast between these comic styles becomes even more apparent with the films of the early sound era, it began in ancient times. In every art form, one finds that innovation occurs in two ways: an artist choosing to expand upon the foundations set down by another, or an artist reacting against the foundations set down by another, instead deciding to travel in a new direction. In this way, Classical comedy has influenced the comedies of every subsequent era, whether writers wished to follow in the Classical model or wished to avoid it. Comedy draws from real life—one reason why the same or similar gag can elicit laughter for a millennium. Gags seen in nearly every film comedy have their roots in earlier eras. 11/23/2020 0 Comments Film- Manos: Hands of Fate Today, I share with you one of my favorite movies. Unlike many enjoyable movies, nothing about Manos: Hands of Fate is good. I can critique it, since I have made several of my own cheesy movies. Just start with the title. If you are bilingual in Spanish and English, you know that the tile is really Hands: The Hands of Fate. The story of its production is something that I couldn’t make up. Hal Warren, the filmmaker, was a fertilizer salesman. Somehow, he met Stirling Silliphant, the screenwriter of In The Heat of the Night. He thought it was a great film, but he bet Silliphant that he could make his own movie for less money… much less money. He wrote the script himself and hired local theater performers to be the stars. He saved the coveted role of “Mike” for himself. To create the scary atmosphere of the film, many of the outdoor scenes were filmed at night. In order to see the action, he had to rent huge lights. The downside to these lights is that many bugs were attracted to them and the lights were so close to the camera that most of the nighttime scenes had bugs flying in and out of the shot. But I guess this was appropriate for the satanic, lord of the flies, cult feeling that Warren was going for.  The film’s opening sequence is breathtaking--in the form of a yawn. It appears that the scenes of driving were meant to be a backdrop to the title sequence, but after “Manos: The Hands of Fate” appears, there are no other words that appear. Just endless scenes of the people in the car (who we don’t know yet) driving around while sexy saxophone music plays. I would say it is about 10 minutes into the movie that we hear the first dialogue and the characters admit that they are lost, so they sing Row Your Boat to pass the time. After passing a whole bunch of signs that tell them where various destinations are, they decide the best course of action is to stop at a rundown shack. For fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 that first saw Manos on that show (like me), this is when the movie really starts, with the introduction of Torgo. His name does work in the canon of evil sidekick names like Lobo, Igor, and Mongo. But he could also fit in with Groucho, Chico, and Harpo Marx. I have read that it was Warren’s intention that Torgo be only part human and maybe part goat?? Supposedly someone designed this contraption that would make it look like Torgo’s knees bent from the back. However, the actor playing Torgo wore the contraption backwards so instead, Torgo just appears to have massive knees and needs a staff to avoid falling over.  After the lost family asks for directions and gets nowhere with Torgo, our hero Mike seems determined to spend the night at the rundown shack. Now, I have watched this movie more times than I probably should have, but I still can’t figure out why Mike is so anxious to stay there. Torgo has to think it over, because after all “The Master wouldn’t approve” (who is The Master??). Torgo thinks for what seems like an eternity and decides they can stay there and he even carries their bags into the house. At this point, the viewer hears for the first time “The Torgo Theme” a repetitive motif that may be the least threatening villain theme of all time. I may not have made it clear yet, that more or less this movie plays out in real time. Once they enter the house, the family passes the time trying to make conversation with Torgo and admiring the minimalist decor. Finally, some action happens when Debbie wanders off and they have to search all two or three rooms of the house to find her and then the car won’t start! It’s once Mike goes to fix the car that the wife’s affair with Torgo begins. Kidding!! After Mike leaves, Torgo and the wife just stare at each other. Torgo says some awkward things. I believe Warren was going for some type of assault, but Torgo flicks the lady’s hair and that’s it, so she slaps him and calls him a beast. Later on that night, we learn that Torgo has many women on his mind and goes to the evil cult altar where there are like 8 or 9 women in nightgowns in some sort of spell/sleep/trance type thing. He helps himself to tickle the arm of one of the women before going back to the shack to peep on the wife in the bedroom (twice!).  Just when things couldn’t get any worse, The Master wakes up and demands that the family be sacrificed to their god, Manos. All of the captive women (which turn out to be the Master’s wives) wake up and get into an argument about what to do with the family, which turns out into a big all-out brawl. As they fight, The Master finds Torgo asleep in the shack and tells Torgo that he may no longer require Torgo’s services as… whatever the heck Torgo does.
The Master breaks up the fight and tells the women they must kill Torgo. Their first attempt at an aggressive massage doesn’t seem to do the job. So the Master takes matters into his hand and takes Torgo by the hand. He touches Torgo’s hand to one of the logs in the campfire and through an abrupt cut, there’s a pretend explosion and Torgo runs away. In the end, the family cannot escape The Master and Mike becomes Torgo’s replacement, while his wife and daughter join the Master’s wives (yuck). But honestly, once Torgo is out of the movie, so is the real drama. When the movie was finished, either something went wrong with the sound that was recorded or no sound had been recorded, as much of the dialogue had to be dubbed in postproduction. For bigger budgets, this usually isn’t an issue, but not every performer was available for the dub. The best example of this is near the beginning when Mike gets pulled over for speeding. Warren had to dub the voice of Mike and the police officer, so he is literally talking to himself. Warren went all out for the premiere in his local town. He rented out a theater and a search light for out front. He even rented a limo for the actors, but only wanted to pay for one limo so it would drop off one actor and then drive around the corner to pick up another actor. According to what I have read, the premiere was a disaster. Pretty near the beginning, the audience started laughing, which continued the entire time and eventually the cast crawled on their hands and knees to escape the theater. Warren did have good instincts when he admitted that he could simply rebrand the movie as a comedy and have a hit. Unfortunately, the film did not find a large audience until Mystery Science Theater in the 1990s. Many people today enjoy the film and appreciate Warren’s work, even if his first intention was not to make a comedy.  I do not want the reader to misinterpret the above statement as claiming “critics and scholars determine comedy to be bad”; however, by ignoring its significance, they seem to argue that it is not good enough to have aesthetic value. To demonstrate to the reader how comedy is left out in much of the literature of film criticism, I have compiled data from a variety of film associations and media publications. In 1998, to mark the 100th anniversary of the invention of the motion picture, the American Film Institute decided to create a list, ranking the 100 greatest films of the first 100 years of filmmaking. They clearly touched on a popular idea, for many other institutions and publications followed suit. In the list of the 100 greatest films of all time, AFI only includes ten comedies: Some Like It Hot (#14, directed by Billy Wilder 1959), Dr. Strangelove (26, Stanley Kubrick 1964), Annie Hall (31, Woody Allen 1977), It Happened One Night (35, Frank Capra 1934), Tootsie (62, Sydney Pollack 1982), The Gold Rush (74, Charlie Chaplin 1925), City Lights (76, Charlie Chaplin 1931), Modern Times (81, Charlie Chaplin 1936), Duck Soup (85, Leo McCarey 1933), and Bringing Up Baby (97, Howard Hawks 1938). To clarify, The American Film Institute has determined that of the 100 greatest films ever made, only 10% are comedies. Notice also that three of the ten films are works of Chaplin. In 2008, AFI decided to update their original list to 13% comedies, including The General (#18, Buster Keaton 1926), The Philadelphia Story (44, George Cukor 1940), and A Night At The Opera (85, Sam Wood 1935). Some Like It Hot (now #22), Dr. Strangelove (39), Annie Hall (35), It Happened One Night (46), Tootsie (69), The Gold Rush (58), City Lights (11), Modern Times (78), Duck Soup (60), and Bringing Up Baby (88) return to the list, though in a different order than in the previous list. Once again, the reader may notice that Chaplin still has the most entries. On American Movie Classic’s Filmsite, editor-in-chief Tim Dirks compiled a list of the 100 greatest films that appear on many such lists. He elected to include 13 comedies: Annie Hall, Bringing Up Baby, City Lights, Dr. Strangelove, Duck Soup, The General, The Gold Rush, His Girl Friday (Howard Hawks 1940), It Happened One Night, The Lady Eve (Preston Sturges 1941), Modern Times, A Night At The Opera, and Some Like It Hot. Apparently, he was feeling more generous towards comedy when compared to other critics. Critics at Yahoo.com include 11 comedy films in their list of the “100 Movies To See Before You Die”: Annie Hall, Blazing Saddles (Mel Brooks 1974), Bringing Up Baby, Dr. Strangelove, Duck Soup, Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis 1993), It Happened One Night, M*A*S*H (Robert Altman 1970), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones 1975), National Lampoon’s Animal House (John Landis 1978), and Some Like It Hot. When Time Magazine set about to declare the “All-Time 100 Movies” in 2005, critics Richard Corliss and Richard Schickel decided to include only 6 comedies: The Awful Truth (Leo McCarey 1937), City Lights, Dr. Strangelove, His Girl Friday, It’s A Gift (Norman Z. McLeod 1938), and Kind Hearts and Coronets (Robert Hamer 1949). According to these two critics, of all the greatest films, only six of them are comedies. Only 5% of Total Film Magazine’s “Greatest 100 Movies of All Time” list from 2010, are comedies: Annie Hall, Dr. Strangelove, His Girl Friday, The Philadelphia Story, and Some Like It Hot. The lowest blow to film comedy came from The British Film Institute, which did not include a single comedy in its Top 10 Films list in 2002. If we were to create an aggregate from the percentages of comic films represented in these lists, we would find that the general consensus among the critical community is that only about 8% of the most significant films are comedies. Also, consider that from the above examples, the same handful of films appears on multiple lists—indicating the small canon of currently recognized comedies. These facts suggest the clear state of the current critical and scholarly view of film comedy. The lack of study of comedy indicates that many academics feel that it is not worthy of study, not that there is a lack of comedy films to analyze. As we look further at the state of comedy film criticism and research, it will become quite clear that a lack of a clear critical language specifically crafted for the analysis of comedy is one of the leading causes for critics to overlook comedies: they simply do not know how to write about it.  The Current State of Film Comedy Research Many before me have written about the history of film comedy, the significant comic minds of the Twentieth Century, and how the films are a reaction to the times. The significance of the historical and cultural contexts in which films exist cannot be overstated. The effect of historical events and changes in the culture are important to the comedies that appear at specific times, and sometimes the films themselves may influence the culture. Some academics catalogue the various comic styles, defining them as “comedian comedies”, “slapstick”, or “Screwball”, among others. Although a few scholars have tried to discover what makes a comedy funny or to compare or contrast comedies to non-comic genres, to the best of my knowledge, no scholar has ever tried to determine why critics do not give comedies the recognition that I argue they deserve. Viewing comedy as a social activity is much more a component than with other genres, For example, with a gathering of friends, it would be commonplace to watch a Pink Panther or a Marx Brothers picture. This situation could possibly be due to the fact that a comedy (which can be quite episodic) can withstand an interruption such as a conversation during a viewing, which could be disruptive to the viewing of a non-comic film. It would be rare for friends to gather as a social activity and then view a tragedy like Love Story (Arthur Hiller 1970) or Romeo and Juliet (Franco Zeffirelli 1968), although I do not wish to negate the ability for people to bond through watching a tragedy. The idea of comedy as a communal experience helps explain what makes comedy unique.  A Definition of the Comedy Film I must begin this section by reiterating that there is no universal, unified definition of comedy, While dozens of scholars have attempted to craft definitions of comedy since the earliest days of Greek comedy, it is difficult to even gauge what the components of a successful comedy are.
To help me in the study that I did, I found common things among the comedy films I watched, I dub them the Four Principles of Comic Effect. Together, these Principles do not form a universal definition of comedy, rather they reveal the themes and conventions that make comedy what it is—which is perhaps the closest one can get to a functional definition of comedy. First, is The Principle of Comic Timing. This Principle includes the elements of surprise, discovery, revelation, and anticlimax—shown so well through the medium of film with which a filmmaker can disclose or withhold information through shot choice. Expectations and assumptions of the audience—either previously held or encouraged by the filmmaker’s use of patterns—fuels the Comic Timing, Here is where comedy and horror films diverge. Both rely on the unexpected, but comedy uses an aspect of surprise for its comedic absurdity, while horror uses it as suspense. The surprise of comedy occurs when the comic performer goes against the viewer’s conception of what is socially permissible. However, for the suspense of horror to work, the viewer must anticipate that something horrific will happen—the unexpected occurs because the viewer does not know when the horrific thing will happen. Some may argue that the surprise of horror results in a more predictable outcome of fright or shock, while the surprise of comedy may lead to many things such as absurdity, unpredictability, chaos, a pause, or even a shift in the narrative. One may see a great example of the element of surprise as a narrative shift in comedy in the “and now for something completely different” style of the Monty Python pictures. Following expectations, points of coincidence fall under Comic Timing. At its greatest extent, this Principle can totally catch the viewer off guard with a total reversal or opposition of what the viewer expects. Through this Principle, the comedy may go against socio-cultural expectations, entering the domain of taboo. The second Principle of Comic Effect is The Principle of Comic Logic. Under this Principle fall the comic methods of exaggeration, excess, caricature, imitation, and mockery. Exaggeration follows as a product of the logic of the absurd by functioning in a way that makes sense within the frame of the comedy, but seems ridiculous outside the comedy. Following these methods are the complementary methods of repetition, recurrence, and intensification. As I shall demonstrate using the case studies, recurring events and repetitive actions and motifs result in a compounding of the actions or motifs, intensifying with each repetition. The third Principle of Comic Effect is The Principle of Comic Experience. Comedy brings attention to the external, physical, and literal. Under this Principle, we have the comic trait of impersonation and disguise—most commonly seen by the cross-dressing gags in movies like Bringing Up Baby and Some Like It Hot. The last Principle of Comic Effect is The Principle of Comic Sense, which describes the lack of awareness featured by so many comic characters. Comedy often comes as a result of absent-minded characters, From Cervante’s Don Quixote to Peter Seller’s Inspector Clousseau, a character that is unaware of his own flaws makes us laugh. Physically enacted, this absentmindedness leads to clumsiness. As for a comic character’s traits, her precipitance, or penchant for jumping into situations without any forethought of consequences comes from this Principle—best shown by Katharine Hepburn’s character of Susan Vance in Bringing Up Baby. In terms of interaction among characters, comic sense leads to the possibility of misunderstanding, confusion, and deception—again seen in Bringing Up Baby, as well as in The Ladykillers. Following the Four Principles of Comic Effect, I shall now present the first four themes that I have identified as commonalities across many comedies. First, I find that comedy goes against the conventions of filmmaking. 1) Comedy can break the Fourth Wall. In comedy, the narrative is no longer the be all and end all, as gags often exist outside of the narrative. 2) A film comedy does not require closure—the resolution necessary for a fulfilling dramatic narrative. The comic heroine or that comic heroine’s situation may appear at the end of the film exactly as it had appeared at the beginning—with no apparent transformation within the heroine or with her situation. 3) In comedy, when one actor can play several roles, it not only works, it shows true comic merit. Often, the comedienne takes precedence over any character she may be portraying. As I stated above, in addition to these broken film conventions, comedy is the only genre of film that comfortably, and frequently, addresses social taboo. The second common theme among comedies is that comedy is a struggle between limiters and disruptions; In comedy, gags may upset the narrative structure with no undue consequences. It is up to the filmmaker to craft a narrative that makes it possible for other narrative events to keep the gags in check. Typically, every comedy has at least one comic character and one serious character, or ‘straight-man’, in order for the comedy to work. As part of this balance, we often see comic characters that are ‘The Other’, one who does not fit into the preexisting social mold. This is frequently true in the films of Chaplin as well as the anarchic comedies. The third common theme is that comedy is an essential part of humanity, marking us as distinctly human. Comedy gives us the opportunity to deal with life honestly, because with comedy we are forced to laugh at ourselves, no matter how uncomfortable. It causes us to drop our guard in order to deal with truths that might otherwise be painful, Comedy forces us, as viewers, to acknowledge the flaws that we all have. The nature of comedy allows us, as individuals, to lower our defenses and to address issues openly and honestly. In this sense, comedy is necessary for a fulfilling life. I would even argue that life is the great comedy—if we allow it to be that by acknowledging and expressing our genuine selves, flaws included. 11/2/2020 0 Comments Film- When Was The First Movie? This is a question that I have heard many people ask. A great many people are quick to say The Wizard of Oz because that is the oldest movie they can remember, but films had actually existed for a few decades before that. There were already movie stars and a studio system before the advent of sound technology in 1927, 12 years before Wizard of Oz. The short answer to when was the first movie is-- no one knows! The idea of separate pictures shown fast enough to create the illusion of movement started in the last quarter of the 19th century. Carnival attractions of the little carousel with slits in it that when looking through it showed a horse galloping or a person dancing became popular. It was about 1885 that someone (it was not Thomas Edison, as is generally believed; he was a strong inventor and an even more ruthless businessman) figured out how to use sprockets to string film and play pictures in sequence with a bulb shining on the film. In general, film works because different amounts of light and dark will work differently with the chemicals on the film. This is how shades of colors are shown with film. The oldest film that is still viewable today is from 1893 France. It is a short comedy scene of a man watering the garden. A kid comes up and twists the hose to stop the water. The man looks in the hose to see why the water has stopped and gets sprayed. It is really amazing to think that we can still see footage from about 130 years ago. Film is much more likely to degrade than still photographs or paintings because of the chemicals used to produce the film. Many early film stocks are now lost because the chemicals used in its production were so flammable that entire vaults of films were lost to fire. Another reason that we have fewer films from the early 20th century, despite how many were regularly made, is that studios did not see a long-term value in preserving a film. Either they were stored without care or simply discarded once the studio had exploited them completely.  Frame Dimensions It was much later into the 20th century that standards of frame dimension, framerate per second, and more became the norm. The 1.33 or 1.37:1 that is called the “Academy” ratio was not standard until about the 1920s. If an aspect ratio is unfamiliar to you, it is simply the width of the image compared to the height. So the academy ratio is 1.37 times as wide as it is tall. A perfect square would have a 1:1 ratio. Some filmmakers envisioned that a square would be the standard and that filmmakers would make the image inside that square wider or narrower as needed for the story. Today, most films are either presented “flat” with a 1.85:1 ratio (often captured with a full frame and cropping the top and bottom to make it appear wider) or “scope” (named after Cinemascope, which was a widescreen system that began in the 1950s) with a 2.35:1 ratio. Many other aspect ratios have been experimented with over the years. I am not sure if anyone has ever tried an image narrower than 1.33:1. The widest aspect ratio that was presented in mainstream theaters was 2.76:1. Only about 5 films ever used the MGM Camera 65 or Super Panavision 70 system that allowed for this width, the most notable being Ben-Hur in 1959. The extreme width came from a 70mm (wider) piece of film and an anamorphic lens that would squeeze the image. When projected, another anamorphic lens would unsqueeze the image. Even though Ben-Hur was filmed this way, many regular cinemas did not have the ability to show it that way, resulting in them cropping off the sides of the image.  Frame Rate Another idea is framerate, or the number of frames that occur in a second. The 24 frames per second rate that we take for granted now was also not standard until about the 1920s. Much lower frame rates per second gives film that kind of choppy look that we associate with many silent movies. Keep in mind at that time, when the camera was hand cranked to feed the film through, the speed at which it was cranked could change the frame rate. So the standard, consistent 24 frames per second could not be widely used until the cameras were automatically cranked. Even though 24 frames per second for cinema presentation is still the standard, television and video technology makes it complicated. In most European countries, the standard for video is 25 frames per second, so it is not too difficult to convert a movie to show on television. However, in North America, our video standard is 29.97 frames per second (often simplified to 30). Clearly, you can’t just speed up the movie so that it runs at a faster frame rate (the result would be high pitched dialogue). Instead, there are formulas for converting frame rates (most are done automatically by computer software today).  Sound Technology Another film technology that is often discussed is sound. The transition from silent movies to full sound did not happen as abruptly as many people assume. Although experiments with sound synchronized to image began around 1926-1927 and the first full sound film The Jazz Singer premiered in 1927, full sound movies were the exception until about 1930. The first sound technology used were records that had to be lined up with the image. The limitations to this were quickly apparent, as the projectionist would have to change reels and records. Soon a way of printing the soundwaves on the film, called optical sound made it so that the sound was synchronized to each frame. At first, the sound was monophonic, meaning 1 channel, produced by a single strip of soundwaves on the side of the frame. Once television became competition to the film industry, filmmakers needed to think of ways to attract people away from their televisions and into cinemas. Beyond various methods of creating larger and wider images (detailed above), stereo sound (2 channels) was the next step for sound technology. This meant that not only were there 2 separate sound signals, but the sound could also be directional. This means sounds would be heard coming from the right or left, relating to what was happening on the screen. Although 6 channel sound is assumed to be a product of the 21st century (it was for home theaters), 6 channel film sound appeared in the 1950s as well. In order to accommodate the 6 different strips of optical sound, larger film was needed. The 70mm film actually showed an image that was 65mm because the 6 tracks of sound took up the rest of the frame. 6 channels then meant that the audience could hear sound coming from behind the screen, both sides, and behind the seats. Now that most movie theaters use digital projectors, the audio source is just another digital file. 8 channels seems to be the most in common use under various brand names like Dolby.  Color Technology The final film technology development that I will discuss today is color photography. Just like sound technology, color developed over time. Just like Wizard of Oz was not the first feature length film, it was also not the first full color film. Based on films that still exist, Becky Sharp from 1935 was in color. Before that, there were short films and experiments with color for certain scenes. Some mostly black and white films added a tint to certain shots, but it was still monochromatic. There were a few attempts using a 2 color process, which was later abandoned with the 3 strip Technicolor process.
We still know the Technicolor name because it was (and is) very high quality. To avoid all the technical details, the 3 strip color process worked because each strip was sensitive to a certain hue and rejected other hues. The three strips would be Red, Green, and Blue. Together, they could create any color needed. It was not perfect right out of the camera. There was a lot of processing work in the lab after filming that needed to be done for it to be perfect. This processing step was the reason why many films were still black and white through the 1960s--the cost of the processing. Later film products were able to film in color without the 3 strip processing and today, digital cameras have different photographic cells that respond to different colors, but the idea is still the same. So unfortunately, I was not able to answer the question of the first film that ever existed, but hopefully you learned a little something of the development of film technology. Please let me know in the comments if you have questions or would like more in depth information about particular film technology developments.  Growing up in the 1990s, the first Star Trek series I saw on television was The Next Generation, but I was so young, it really didn’t appeal to me. I liked the colorful effects but the stories were a little beyond me. By the time I started kindergarten, a local television station was showing reruns of the original series. I could tell that it was older than The Next Generation, but at that time, I was not concerned with what century each series took place or how one series led into another. My biggest interest was the characters and the stories. I honestly was not inspired by the diversity shown on the screen until I was much older. For a young child, anything less than infinite diversity did not make sense to me. It was later that I learned how incredible it was for the bridge crew to include a Russian navigator (during the cold war), a first officer that wasn’t even completely human, an Asian helmsman (only a couple of decades after WWII) and a Black, female officer on the bridge. The idea of a society without money that had a space fleet with the goal of exploration is still incredible. It is possible that I saw every episode of the original series by the time the local station stopped showing it. The next step was to go to the local video rental store (when they still existed) and rent VHS tapes of the Star Trek movies (I don’t think the store even had a single DVD at this time). Often, the tapes would have to be rewound before I could watch (anyone remember the “Be kind, please rewind” saying?)  My Mom was a great guide through the Star Trek universe. She knew that The Motion Picture (the first movie) would not have held my interest, so she started me with The Voyage Home (Star Trek IV), which is still my favorite Star Trek movie. I love the blend of humor and adventure. The original cast was so good in comic situations and this film really revels in that. Our heroes become the outsiders when they are thrust into (then) present day earth. Everything we see as “normal” was completely bizarre to the Star Trek crew, and it allows us to critique our own society. On my first viewing, the special effect that blew me away the most was how William Shatner’s toupee managed to stay on his head as he swam underwater to save the whales! There was something about the Star Trek movies that make them so familiar and yet so very different from the shows. If you think about the original 6 movies, Wrath of Khan (II), Search for Spock (III), and The Voyage Home (IV) form a continuous trilogy. I’m not sure if this was an intentional plan after the success of the Star Wars trilogy, or if it just happened that way. For The Motion Picture (I), The Final Frontier (V), and The Undiscovered Country (VI), the viewer does not need to have seen the other films to follow the story. However, one does need to be familiar with the characters to follow character relations. I believe this detail may contribute to how Star Trek movies seem to under-perform with a wide audience compared to the movies of other franchises. How much research does one need to do before watching a 2 hour movie? I know hardcore Trek fans would argue that people need a high enough intellect to appreciate a Star Trek movie, and that the 2009 reboot did well because it was “dumbed down” for the average person. When in fact I would argue that it did well because it introduced each character one at a time. In every other Star Trek film, it is assumed that the viewer is already intimately familiar with each character and because of that, if a viewer does not already know the characters, it is like 2 hours of an inside joke and the viewer is alienated from the start.  After The Voyage Home (IV), the next Star Trek movie we rented was The Wrath of Khan (II). I had already seen Star Wars at this point, so my expectations were probably similar to original viewers when Wrath of Khan premiered in 1982. It definitely met my expectations. It didn’t have as frequent action as Star Wars, but unlike Star Wars, you saw the destruction inside the ships and how that affected the characters. I also like that Wrath of Khan was more a sequel to the television episode Space Seed than it was to the first movie. The writers did a great job giving the viewer enough information about Khan’s backstory without needing clips or a play by play of the episode. Of course, I missed all the Moby Dick references until I was much older and could appreciate that. Unlike the Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan actually acknowledged that the characters (and therefore, the actors) had aged since the television series. So much of Kirk’s identity in Wrath of Khan has to do with his reluctance to acknowledge a significant birthday (implied to be 50).  I believe the next movie I saw was The Undiscovered Country (VI). Notice how my parents guided me to the even numbered movies before the odd numbered movies. The general consensus goes that the even numbered Star Trek movies are better than the odd numbered. Even film critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel admitted this trend. This was true until Nemesis (Star Trek 10) was bad and the 2009 movie (Star Trek 11) was good. I remember noticing how much darker the Undiscovered Country was compared to the previous films. I don’t just mean tone, I mean the absence of lighting on the sets. There was literally less light in the image. Apparently, the cinematographer used a lot of source lighting, meaning that the control panels themselves were lighting the actors’ faces instead of traditional film lighting. I remembered getting totally freaked out during the zero gravity assassination scene. I remember reading somewhere that the film would have been PG13 if the Klingons had red blood instead of pink. That would have been helpful for my parents to know because I believe I was about 8 when I saw it. The shot where the Klingon gets his arm shot off was too much for little Mike. Years later, I’ve come to appreciate the Undiscovered Country as one of my favorite Star Trek movies, even if the Klingon villain quoted Shakespeare too much. From the first second of the Undiscovered Country, it is clear that the style is different from the rest of the series. Instead of a grand fanfare, the music begins with low bass and cello notes, influenced by Stravinsky’s The Firebird. The music score even includes a choir, which was a first for the Star Trek series. The film itself is more of a political thriller than an adventure movie. The only real space battle is saved until the very end, but it is quite an epic one. So many elements come together to make a great sequence--the Enterprise battles a Klingon bird of prey that can fire when cloaked, Sulu and his ship the Excelsior race to assist the Enterprise, and there is a time limit because all of them know that someone on the planet is going to try to assassinate the President of the Federation. The entire plot of the film centers around the idea that it is an end to an era, the Klingons and the Federation are signing a peace agreement, ending many decades of aggression. At the same time the Enterprise and its crew are being retired. What a fitting end to the original series.  After the Undiscovered Country, I watched my favorite of the odd numbered original movies, The Search for Spock (III). I saw an interview with Leonard Nimoy, who directed the film as well as starring as Spock, in which he described how he viewed the film as an opera. In that sense, the emotions of the film work well--feelings of loss and friendship are experienced in big amounts. This film fits the spirit of the original series much better than The Motion Picture. The crew were willing to sacrifice their careers and their ship because there was a chance that Spock was still alive. I think many people group Search for Spock with The Motion Picture (I) and The Final Frontier (V) because it is not as exciting as the previous film, Wrath of Khan and not as funny as the following film Voyage Home. But there are many humorous character moments and some great action setpieces. The way Kirk tricks the Klingon crew to board the Enterprise just as it is about to self-destruct is brilliant and the fight between Kirk and the Klingon captain is directly from the television series with the added big budget elements of the entire planet falling apart around them.  So far, I have mentioned The Motion Picture (I) many times. I believe this was the next movie I watched. I say believe, because I don’t remember much of my first viewing besides that I kept waiting for something to happen. It was very difficult for young Mike to get through. It is still difficult for older Mike to get through. When I rewatch it, I appreciate the production design and effects efforts. Compared to all the other movies, you probably see more sets of the inside of the Enterprise in this movie. Also, the number of different ships seen--3 Klingon ships, the newly-renovated Enterprise in all its glory, the spacedock, 2 different space stations, shuttles, the Vulcan shuttle, etc. The shots of the Enterprise from this film were reused in many of the later films. However, the story could have used more time to develop before production started and it could have used a tighter edit. I have read that the studio was so desperate to release the movie on a certain date that Jerry Goldsmith had to compose much of the music before seeing the scenes it was written for and that the premiere was the first time most of the people in the production had seen any of it. But many years later, the practical and miniature effects still hold up really well. The scene flying to the newly refit Enterprise is long but thrilling when the Enterprise is seen and it really does look like a beautiful, massive starship. Consider too that Jerry Goldsmith’s theme had not yet become the often heard theme to the Next Generation. Of all the original movies, The Motion Picture is probably the one I watch the least. It’s not poorly made; it’s just really boring. I have to be in the right mood, or convinced to have a marathon of all the original movies. Sadly, when I have tried to do a marathon in order, my friends and I get through the Motion Picture and often don’t have the energy for Wrath of Khan.  The last of the original movies I saw was The Final Frontier (V). I actually didn’t see it until years after I saw the rest of the series because friends and family recommended I avoid it. I actually saw it on TV (probably the Sci Fi channel at the time). Even though I was probably about 12, I could still see where corners had been cut in the effects budget. Industrial Light and Magic had already taken on too many projects in 1989, so they were not available for the production (‘89 was a big effects year with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Batman, and Ghostbusters II).
Instead, the company that handled the effects for The Final Frontier (V) did not have the experience or the budget to do a job comparable to the other films in the series. Many of the effects do not hold up when compared to the television effects 20 years earlier. There is one shot where a Klingon bird of prey fires a torpedo at the Enterprise, and the Enterprise narrowly escapes. The shot is so poorly done, someone could literally have pulled a still image of the Enterprise with fishing wire and it would have been more effective (and cheaper!) However, I still believe that The Final Frontier could be saved with redone effects. Yes, the concept is silly, but the movie does move from point A to point B swiftly and there are many great character moments. Just like The Motion Picture, the music from Jerry Goldsmith is incredible. There are some great action cues, but the best themes (in my opinion) are the grand moments. The Star Trek fanfare at the opening transitions into a majestic cue of Kirk (at least they want us to believe it) climbing in Yosemite National Park. The music gives the feeling of American Classical music with harmonies reminiscent of Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein. Near the end of the film, Goldsmith combines electronic and acoustic instruments to produce an uplifting and equally unsettling sound for the Eden-like planet that the characters believe they have found. Unfortunately, the film ends with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy singing Row Your Boat off-key, but that’s another story. Everyone has their favorite Star Trek television series. Next Generation is probably my favorite of the television series, but I will always enjoy the original film series best. Their balance of action, humor, and character relations give me a great feeling for the series that has been a part of my life since I was very young. 9/21/2020 0 Comments Film- How To Host A Movie Premiere Clearly, this post is not an exhaustive guide on movie premieres, but based on my personal experience hosting a premiere. A premiere is often a one time event (unless a big movie has premieres all over the world), but when it goes successfully, it can be the memory of a lifetime. I will go through the steps chronologically to hopefully avoid confusion. Obviously, the first step in planning a premiere is to complete your film or have a very good idea of when it will be complete. You do not want to book a venue and invite everyone, only to have a rough draft to present. Note--your premiere is not a test audience. Any test audience should happen before the film premieres. If you are applying to film festivals, be really sure to read the fine print. Some festivals will not consider your submission if your film has already premiered somewhere else. Festivals have details of their own, so that is a story for another day. For the purpose of this article, we are assuming that you have already presented at festivals or are deciding to not do the festival route. I live in a small area, so there are only 4 local cinemas. I simply sent out an email inquiry to each explaining that I was a local, independent filmmaker that had completed a film and wanted to rent a screen to premiere my film. Be sure that the cinema knows you only want to rent a screen and not the entire facility. Within a couple of days I had heard back from each company. I was surprised at how each already had a policy for rentals. In my area, each cinema is either locally owned or locally managed, so the situation would be different in a larger area with national chain theaters like AMC. I decided to go with the locally-owned theater that was very willing to work with me to be sure that the finished product met my expectations. I believe the price might have been a little higher than the other options, but the fact that the service included that personal touch attracted me. At that point, I was introduced to the behind the scenes operations of the cinema multiplex. In terms of the world, this cinema was small, with only 8 screens. The entire facility could be operated with simply one employee if necessary. A computer or phone could check on the status of each projector. I think the part that blew me away was the business arrangement from the film studios or distributors. What happens is that the distributor, or the movie studio (sometimes the same company, but sometimes not) leases the screen and they decide what will be shown on that screen for the duration of the lease. For example, if Warner Brothers leases Screen 1, the cinema owner cannot show anything else on Screen 1 without Warner Brothers’ permission. Because I wanted to show my movie at a specific time, I not only had to pay for the use of the facility, but also for the amount that the movie distributor might have made for the movie I was replacing at that time. It is a very strict system and the massive studios hold all the power. If the owner of the cinema did something to tick off Disney, they may lose the contract and not be able to show any future movies from Disney. This arrangement is another reason why small independent movies have such a hard time getting distribution in theaters, unless several small distributors can get together to lease one screen. This also explains why so many smaller movies are released only in “select theaters”. Once the date and time was all set and we knew which screen to use, we had to check all the specifications for that particular screen. At this particular cinema, all the screens had similar specifications, but that is not always the case. Some screens may project in 4K, others in 2K (about the same as 1080p television), while others are 6K or higher. Another specification to check is the sound. No matter how many speakers are hooked into the room, the system itself may only broadcast one channel or split the signal into 2 channels (stereo) or more. 6 speakers in the room does not mean that the signal is split into 6 separate channels. The same channel may be going through each speaker. I based my timeline of invitations on the big premieres of the 1950s like Around The World In 80 Days, The Ten Commandments, and Ben-Hur. These were called “roadshow” presentations, which meant that once they were released in theaters, there would be few showings in a day and the details would be very precise. My movie also included an intermission, just to add a bit of class (and a bathroom break). I sent out a “save the date” invitation about 6 months before the premiere and then another reminder 3 months before.  One detail I forgot to mention was that all of the projectors in this cinema are digital projectors. The majority of cinemas today use digital projectors. The reason for this returns to the distributors leasing the screens. It is more cost effective for a distributor to send a hard drive with a file (or several movies) on it to plug into a digital projector than reels of film. Remember how I said that one employee could run the whole facility? That means there is not a projectionist for each screen that knows how to operate film projectors. Even though all the projectors were digital, it didn’t mean I could just have a Quicktime or MP4 file on a hard drive and hope that it went well. Digital projectors require a DCP, or Digital Cinema Package. This package contains all the video and audio files needed to show the movie as well as all the information that the system requires, including the dimensions of the image, how many channels of sound and which speakers to send that sound, etc. The cinema owner showed me a free program called DCP-o-Matic, which did the trick. Of course, before the big premiere, we tested it out to be sure that the video and audio were exactly what they needed to be. Don’t just assume it will work because all the specifications line up. For the big night, I hired a photographer. That way I could concentrate on interacting with people and not worry about capturing the event. Not to mention, the pictures came out much better than if I had done them myself. Since the system is completely controlled by computer, the film would start at 6PM whether I was ready or not. I made sure to tell guests to arrive before 5:45. In a situation like this, you cannot plan the start time based on when the last people arrive. If you say it starts at 5:45, that is when you start. Around 5PM, I greeted guests in the lobby of the cinema, so that they could know which screen to go to. Of course, I was wearing a tuxedo, just to show how special the event was for me. At 5:30, I was greeting guests at the entrance to the screen itself. At 5:45, I began a presentation before the film began. Since everything was connected and automated, the lights went down when the film began and went up at the end. This was a life saver and a real important idea. By the time of your premiere, you want all the technical details to be handled by someone else or set to run automatically. You don’t want to be greeting guests and then run out to press play at the right time. This is another reason why I hired a venue instead of just renting a screen for my backyard. After the film was over, I had a Q and A session with the audience. This was a great opportunity to interact with people, some that had been involved with the production and others learning about it for the first time recently. Since I had planned ahead, I had DVD copies of the film and CDs of the soundtrack available for sale, which helped to offset some of the cost to rent the screen. Similar to performing live for an audience, there is nothing like being in the moment to encourage people to buy a product that they might not think to do if it is only online. My biggest takeaway from the experience of hosting a premiere is the necessity of planning. If I had not planned out every detail before the event, it would have been overwhelming and probably not an enjoyable experience for me. Once you are finished with the product, let the presentation be a celebration and not just more work.  |