The Amazing Spider Man

Incase you havent already heard The Amazing Spider Man has a trailer. Let me know your thoughts on this film, is it just the original with Andrew Garfield instead of that Toby guy? Do we need it? Is there a bigger debate about originality in Hollywood, with the constant franchises and re-boots?

I was never a fan of the Raimi Spider Man films and didn’t much like Toby Maguire as Peter Parker. This film looks promising and Garfield looks like he will fit the part well. Time will tell.

Comments please!

Bodily Transgressions and Technology in The Fly

An earlier blog post discussed technology as horrific in science fiction films, as a continuation bodily transgressions as a result of future technology, are also a source of discussion.  The Fly (1986) is an interesting film to consider for this area as it can be seen as a film that crosses the science fiction and horror genre. The Fly (1986) through its mutation of the body, is an example of ‘body horror’, which conventionally is synonymous with the horror genre. Bukatman (1993:261) concurs in noting that ‘the horror genre…centres upon an extensive hyberbolization of the body and its (dys)functions.’ It is therefore clear that the mixed genre of science fiction and horror provides the grounding for technology as horrific though bodily transgressions adapted from the horror genre. It is this notion of body horror and transgressions, as a result of technology that is of interest to us.

The premise of The Fly (1986) lies on the creation of a machine that can teleport objects from A to B. Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldbloom), the protagonist of the film plays the scientist who develops and experiments with the technology and ultimately mutates through using it. The relationship between technology and the body is seen after Brundle teleports himself unknowingly with a fly, consequently morphing with it. As a viewer it is clear that this has happened through crosscutting and due to the insect hair on his back, brought to our attention by Veronica (Geena Davis).  At first this accident with technology is portrayed as good. For example Brundle awakes in the night and performs a highly acrobatic routine, displaying a great deal of strength. This is depicted as evolutionary through Brundle’s ecstatic reaction. Bukatman (1993:268) concurs in noting that ‘Brundle calls for transcendence.’ Meaning that his belief that technology has bettered him in his human form, he now believes that he has transcended over machine and ultimately technology revealing his true self. It is initially the case that technology has release the potential of the human body. This is however short-lived as in a later scene Veronica asks Brundle, ‘Do you take coffee with your sugar?’ as Brundle adds the tenth spoonful to his coffee. Indicating the possibility of further side effects to the teleportation with the fly. The film can be said to embrace the idea of technology, initially depicting it as anything but horrific, and perhaps for the greater good.

Despite initially showing the relationship between human and technology as positive, the continued mutation of Brundle changes this. As Brundle gets more and more visually grotesque the notion of technology as horrific strengthens. For example the very last scene of the film shows BrundleFly, complete a full mutation into a fly. The body horror begins to deliver its full effect. Although somewhat disfigured, up until this point Brundle still has human facial features, eyes, mouth and a human shape head. As the rotting flesh drops of his arms, Cronenberg shows the implosion of his face directly at the camera, as more flesh falls away, revealing the ‘fly inside’. The horror of the loss of the human form, the mutation and display of human in flesh and muscle is considered horrific. In merging the genres of the horror film and science fiction, explicitly connects that horror to a technological scenario. As this is a direct product of human interaction with technology, one can suggest that the film portrays technology as horrific.

Whilst visually looking horrific The Fly (1986), also adheres to a conservative ideology, alluded to in the earlier blog post. This can be suggested as the conservative notion of the individual is threatened as Brundle’s constant mutation changes his identity.  For the example the first teleportation merges him with the fly, the second can be seen to advance the mutation and finally the third results in his mutation part machine, part Brundle and part Fly. Bukatman (2004:232) concurs in noting that ‘The apparent mind/body dichotomy is suppressed by the trichotomy of mind/body/machine.’ It is therefore clear that the identity of Brundle is now lost or confused as he becomes less and less like his self. His individual character is now a three-way milieu, that is no longer recognisable as Seth Brundle, the self and other, human and non-human, subject and object all become jumbled and dissolved. Placing this in the context of technology as horrific Bukatman (2004:232)notes that ‘the dissolution of identity into new forms is connected to the rise of new technologies.’ Therefore it is clear that the telepod machine or more directly technology takes over his body, a depiction of technology controlling a human, as is the situation in The Matrix (1999). The technology in the film is horrific as it effective destroys the identity and life of Seth Brundle. The Fly (1986) can be read as somewhat of a cautionary tale, that opens the possibilities of technology, whilst hinting at the potential side effects.

If required sources can be listed.

Comments Welcome.

The Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists.

Aardman return with the some what awkwradly named ‘The Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists’ or if your not in the UK ‘The Pirates! Band of Misfits’, which is no better as a name itself. After a six year hiatus from our screens, to be honest that’s probably the time they have spent animating it, this film promises all the Aardman humour, style and innuendos we have come to expect.

Reverting back to stop motion after a dabble in computer animation with Flushed Away, which actually looked like stop motion, Aardman jump on the Pirate bandwagon. All the pirate iconography we are familiar with form the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise is present and should offer up a swashbuckling array of entrainment.

I’m happy to see Aardman back doing what they do best, this film looks like fun, I can’t wait to see it.

Comments Welcome.

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2

You have found my humble review, and for those who decide to read my views I appreciate it, as I’m sure that whatever I have to say will have little bearing on whether you actually go and see this film. We all know you will. Besides there are a million more reviews of this film anyway.

A word of warning, if you have not seen part one of this two part endeavour, or it is not relatively fresh in your mind, I urge you to do so. This film picks up right where the last finished and you will be feeling a little lost if you go in cold.

In fifteen words;

A little rushed at points, spectacular at others. Subplot weaknesses. Veteran actors are superb. Heartfelt.

This film contained all of the action missing from part one, and yet I still think part one was better. It was more artistic, the cinematography was far superior and it conveyed a real feeling of mood. I was left yearning for the sparkle, the magic that was present in The Prisoner of Azkaban was enchanting, not the case in The Deathly Hallows Part 2. There’s no discovery, or learning of magic. More a case of ‘We know spells… Crucio.’ (I know it’s a curse and not necessarily a spell!) Perhaps the magical mojo was there and I have lost the desire to feel it. Either way I am privileged to have grown up alongside this story and its characters. For this reason there is no doubt that this film is a fitting and grand end to the Potter franchise. I did enjoy it, and I’m sure you will too. All in all, ‘Mischief Managed’.

Comments Welcome.

I’m CEO, Bitch.

With the films currently offered by the mulitplex’s, somewhat lacking over the last/current week, I have found my self re-watching films I own to fill a gap.

The Henley Regatta last week reminded me of The Social Network. The scene in which the regatta is featured is a breathtaking example of the artistic capabilities of depth of field/deep focus photography. Just as well I bought it on blu-ray then! Might I add the film on blu-ray has no adverts, once it loads your straight to the disc menu, what a novel approach! Brilliant.

In fifteen words The Social Network is;

Sustained rhythmic perfection in a script that’s humours and dramatic. Sean Penn is Tyler Durden.

Is it a film I like? Yes, quite a lot.

The Dark Knight Rises

New Trailer Leak!

So it seems the teaser trailer for The Dark Knight Rises has been leaked. If you must you can view below. I have watched it, but would have much preferred someone to have sketched some ace storyboards of it, that would have been far cooler!

Technology on Film

The science fiction film and technology go hand in hand as it is the function of the genre to represent technology. Its representation is often horrific and rarely for good, and this depiction is why I feel it is worth a discussion.

Before any examples are analysed, it is necessary to establish why these images and themes of technology as the enemy or as producing violence, actually exist in the first place. Ryan and Kellner’s (2004:48) notion of a conservative ideology explains this through placing the films in a political context of the time. Ryan and Kellner (2004:48) first note that ‘fantasy films concerning fears of machines or of technology usually negatively affirm such social values as freedom, individualism and the family.’ Therefore this provides the basis for an assumption that these films are concerned with conservative values in that they suggest that technology represents artifice as opposed to nature, the mechanical as opposed to the spontaneous, the regulated as opposed to the free. Therefore these conservative issues that arise in science fiction films of the 1980’s can be considered as a reflection of the Republican presidency and its ideologies that existed in American during this period. Therefore conservative film makers ‘used the motifs of technology and dystopia to project terrifying images of collectivisation and modernity.’ (Ryan and Kellner 2004:48). It is therefore clear that films that portray technology negatively or as horrific, are usually from a conservative perspective in an attempt to promote conservative ideologies over liberal concerns.

The notion of the Cyborg has populated many sci-fi films, and thus provides an ideal platform to start upon. Haraway (1991:149), provides a definition of the Cyborg, ‘a Cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism.’ This simple definition is the accepted description of a Cyborg and when manifested in films the Cyborg adheres to this definition in that it is machine and computer enclosed in human flesh and tissue, a hybrid. Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) provides us with this image of the Cyborg. During the film The Terminator  (Arnold Schwarzenegger) cuts the skin and muscle away from his metal exoskeleton revealing the machine inside him. This scene in itself is horrific as to get to the technology the audience is forced to watch a seemingly human character make cuts in his skin, drawing some blood and then pulling the flesh away. This visceral scene evokes a reaction in the audience as it is an example of body horror and penetration of the skin. This is compounded by the reaction shot of the horrified, screaming character of Miles Dyson (Joe Morton) in the film. As this is primarily geared to reveal technology, the director, Cameron in associating it with the visceral horror of blood, in turn depicts the Cyborg an example of technology as horrific. What makes this example more interesting is that even as a protagonist The Terminator is still a representation as technology as horrific. This compounds the notion that all technology good or bad is horrific in this example.

Redmond (2004:156) introduces the concept that there are two types of Cyborg. The first, the pathological Cyborg and the second, the humanist Cyborg. The first is initially the most interesting to consider for the purpose of this essay as it clears outlines technology as horrific. However the latter of the two, the humanist Cyborg, provides an interesting counter argument in the sense that Cyborgs are not all one track mind, ‘kill, kill, kill’ machines. In the form of the pathological Cyborg the hybrid technological organism is primarily the enemy of the human race. Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) shows a clear depiction of this variant of Cyborg in the character T-1000 (Robert Patrick).

An example of the horror he creates as a manifestation of technology and as a pathological Cyborg is the characters obsession with heavy goods vehicles throughout the film, constantly using them as huge unstoppable battering rams. The film features two chase sequences, one early in the film when the T-1000 chases John Conor, the T-1000 uses a large truck here, and again towards the end as Sarah, John and the Terminator try to evade him. These two sequences work as visual metaphors for the notion of the pathological Cyborg. The notion of an unrelenting ‘invincible armoured Cyborg’ (Mizejewski 1999:156), fits with Redmond’s definition of the pathological Cyborg as ‘wanting to melt away its human simulacra to symbolically rid the earth (past, present and future)’ he goes on to note that ‘the pathological Cyborg wants nothing more than the complete genocide of the human race.’ The two aforementioned scenes mirror this as they show a Cyborg that will stop at nothing as he systematically ploughs through humans, cars and anything that is in his way, in the huge trucks to complete an objective. Technology is therefore horrific as it is a destroyer of humanity. Redmond (2004:157) concurs in noting that, ‘The Cyborg articulates the terror of letting too much technology into everyday life’. The Cyborg in Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)  is therefore, in both instances, the protagonist and the antagonist, an example of technology as horrific in the other worldly and unbeatable destroyer senses of the word.

As previously mentioned Redmond (2004:156) outlined two distinct types of Cyborg the pathological as demonstrated exist in Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) , and the second type an example of which also exists in Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) . This type is termed the humanist Cyborg. Redmond (2004:156) defines this variant as a Cyborg that ‘longs for human emotion and human attachment that will add existential meaning to its fragile outer shell.’ Although the words, emotion, attachment and fragile, don’t initially seem to fit with the Arnold Schwarzenegger version of the Cyborg, examples of this can be found.

The first and main example that can be drawn upon is the father figure role that The Terminator adapts through the course of the film. There are little moments of emotional connection between John and The Terminator, these occurrences involve the Terminator’s willingness to learn from John on a moral and emotional level. For example John gets The Terminator to agree to no civilian casualties, telling The Terminator ‘You just can’t go around killing people, you’re not a Terminator anymore.’ The Terminator accepts this just as he does John’s advice to smile. The film also shows the Terminator having his ‘switch’ reset so that he can think more and hence be more human. The Terminators desire to learn more human emotions and morals aligns him with some of the elements of the Humanist Cyborg, this is compounded by the role of the father figure that The Terminator adopts over the duration of the film. These humanistic elements are more like the character types of the Cyborgs or replicants as they are known, in Blade Runner. The relationship between humans and technology that has been highlight so far (oppositions of human/technology), is deconstructed as the humanist element of The Terminator, his father figure role, undercuts the notion nature (the human form) as an opposite to the negative or horrific technology. The humanist element of the Cyborg offers mediation between technology and human values. Therefore the notion of the Cyborg as an example of technology as horrific is somewhat problematic as the Cyborg is not all concerned with violence and destruction, but also with emotion and feeling.

I have not yet applied this to any other Cyborg films so whether it works across the board I couldn’t say. But what is certain is that technology like most other representations has two sides to it, yet more often than not we talk about technology as horrific.

Stay tuned for more Science Fiction later this month, Bodily Transgressions and Technology.

Comments Welcome.

Tree of Life, Terrence Malick

It seems that the release of a Malick film is somewhat of an occasion, given that Mailck has only released five feature films in just short of 40 years. So when Tree of Life won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, my ears pricked further. Tree of Life was released on the 8^th it seemed logical to go and see it.

I made the jaunt to Newcastle, to the Tyneside Cinema to see this film; it was the only place locally that was showing it. Had never been there before until yesterday and can thoroughly recommend it. If you are ever in the North East of England and want to see an independent film look them up, http://www.tynesidecinema.co.uk/

So after watching the film, which was quite a bewildering experience due to the gravitas of its content, I set about the difficult task of reviewing it in 15 words. If you are already aware of its content or have seen the film you might appreciate the difficulty of this task, but that is the challenge. My fifteen carefully chosen words are;

Visually stunning, powerful and beautiful. Abstract. Celestial. Dinosaur. Actively thought provoking. VFX tour-de-force.

Do I like it? The jury is still out. What I can say is that if the rumours of a six hour directors cut are true, I won’t be watching it.

If you have seen it or plan to, I’d be interested in your opinion.

You’ve Been Framed.

What is Framing?

Framing is one of the many elements of cinematography, the frame can be defined as the edge of the shot, the rectangular shape created by the cameras perspective. Choices are made as to what elements to include within this area. This is known as framing. There are several elements of framing, crucial areas to consider are angle, level, height and distance.

Angle

There are an infinite number of angles that could be used by a director, however there are generally three angles that are commonly used, the straight on angle, the high angle (looking down at material within a frame) and the low angle (looking up at material within a frame).

Level

Level in framing is often straight forward. It is more often than not parallel to the horizon. On the occasions it is not i.e. tipped to one side or the other, it is cantered. This technique is rare, but can be seen in Wong Kar-wai’s Fallen Angels.

Height

Used to give a sense of being stationed at a particular height in relation to objects or characters. Important to note that whilst it is related to angle, there are distinguishable differences.

Distance

Whilst this element can be considered as framing, camera distances such as, medium close-ups and extreme long shots are worth explanations in their own right and will be at a later date.

Open Framing

Open framing is the idea that an object or character is shot within the frame surrounded by space, in which to move freely in.

Closed Framing

A contrast to open framing. A character for example framed in a door way appears restricted, closed in if you will.

Functions

Framing is like most cinematic codes a useful tool for generating meaning. However there is no hard and fast way to suggesting something. For example a cantered camera angle in Inception may suggest that reality is out of kilter, but it will not always mean that from film to film. The context of a film determines the functions of meaning.

The King’s Speech motivated this entry on framing and is a useful case study for application of the outlined areas. Framing is used in this film to create a multitude of meaning and emotions. Firstly let’s consider angle. The picture below demonstrates the use of a low angle shot looking up. The shot conotates the intensity of the situation but importantly lets the audience know how small and weak King George VI (Firth) is feeling. There is no doubt that this affect is enhanced by the use of a super wide lens but none the less the same emotion is conveyed.

The images that follows is a prime example of closed framing. We, the audience look upon Firth through the microphone. His face is partially obscured by this object and cropped. Distance also important here, the proximity to him exaggerates the emotion. Consequently we sense his anxiety and how trapped he is, thus creating empathy amongst viewers.

This final shot is perhaps the most interesting. It demonstrates both open and closed framing. Firth sits in a wealth of space, but is not a visual metaphor for agency but for his isolation. He is trapped by the sofa on which he sits, crammed in a corner unable to move, you may think it is a stretch, but the framing one could argue is closed. Distance in this shot is also important, if we were any closer as an audience we would not get the sense of isolation in the on screen space. This shot also highlights how the film constantly broke a cinematographic convention, the rule of thirds. The idea that the frame is split equally into thirds both vertically and horizontally. It is accepted that characters eyes are often on or in the highest third of the frame. The image below shows quite the opposite, perhaps another way of compounding the characters lack of power.

Comments welcome.

The King’s Speech

Gave the King’s Speech a re-watch tonight. Saw it at the cinema upon release and I always feel that generally most films are better with a second viewing. In fifteen words here it is;

A pertinent script, both intense and humorous. The interplay between Firth and Rush is outstanding.