Powered By Blogger

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Theory Paper

As said in the post above, here is my theory paper for your ... scrutiny :)

Believe me, I know there are many things wrong with this (ex: my title assumes that my TA knows who Hitchcock is (snicker).  While I'm more than 1000000% sure I know she knows who Hitchcock is, it's not right to assume.  It makes an ass out of u and me :p)  I also started to get pretty exasperated at the end, so apologies Kaja Silverman, Alfred Hitchcock, Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak :/



Women in Hitchcock’s Vertigo

            Throughout the history of film, the role of woman seemed to be well defined on the screen.  She is demure yet complex, quaint yet common, and always beautiful.  Until recently, women had not broken this mold, and even today the breakage is questionable.  Kaja Silverman’s essay Sutures [Excerpts] tells about the idea of the suture theory and how the method is used to immerse the audience.  However, Silverman explores the idea of the use of women as a catalyst for the suture.  This idea is exemplified in Alfred Hitchcock’s movie Vertigo (1958).  With its two main female characters, played by Kim Novak and Barbara Bel Geddes, Vertigo took the extra step of not only using beautiful women to satisfy the viewers but to explicitly make women a spectacle. 
            Silverman’s article begins with the ideas of the shot/reverse shot and how the sequence is used to suture the audience.  Later, she argues that this same method is used to highlight the male gaze to a woman.  “Classic cinema abounds in shot/reverse shot formations in which men look at women.” [1]  Within Vertigo the first time John “Scottie” Ferguson (Jimmy Stewart) sees Madeleine Elster (Kim Novak) the shot/reverse shot it used, and even toward the end of the scene the shots are used quickly.  Aside from the shot, the way Novak is introduced to the audience is in itself a sort of show.  Among a red room, with patrons in neutral colors, Novak is dressed in an emerald gown and her blond hair signifies that she is the woman the audience is to advert their gaze. 
            The same concept is contradicted in an earlier scene between Scotty and Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes).  The beginning of their dialogue is void of any shot/reverse shot, meaning that Midge is not the focus of the audience’s or Scottie’s gaze.  In fact, in the middle of one of Scottie’s lines, the focus is not on him, but on the picture that Midge is drawing, implying that neither of their attention is really on one another so the audience is left feeling disengaged from the conversation at that moment.  Another incident that detracts Midge from the gaze is a point that Scottie criticizes Midge for being motherly, in which the first close-up reveals Geddes’ homely look – horn rimmed glasses, conservative sweater, simple hair and unflattering camera angle in which we have only seen Midge midpoint and upward. 
            While an audience can gawk at a woman throughout a whole movie, Silverman, as does her contemporary Laura Mulvey, explains that the arousal the woman may cause needs to be “neutralized” and that there are two ways to do this.  The first “involves an interrogation calculated to establish either the female subject’s guilt or her illness.”[2]  In Vertigo the main storyline is Madeleine being possessed by a troubled spirit.  Through this the audience no longer views Novak as a sensual figure, but is focused on her actions that would lead us to believe that she is in fact possessed.  Hitchcock does this deliberately through his choice of shots:  the bouquet of flowers and the style of hair are that in the portrait of Carlotta Valdes (Joanne Genthon).  The zoom-in on both objects is highlighted to the audience that something is not right about this woman. 
            The second “negotiates her erotic overinvestment”[3] which leads to an interruption within the narrative.  The only distinct scene from Vertigo is when Scottie brings Madeleine back to his apartment and we see that she is probably naked (or half naked) in his bed.  Although this is not a complete diversion from the narrative, it raises erotic questions within the viewer.  Such as, “Did Scottie undress her himself?” which he probably did since she is passed out at the introduction of the scene.  “Did he marvel at her?  Or did he carry out his job professionally?”  All these questions lead to something that Silverman refers to as the “dis-placement of the viewer”[4].  While we wonder all these things, we forget that she is unclothed in a stranger’s bed for a reason – to carry on a story. 
            Between these two “problems”, Silverman suggests that both are vital in understanding the locus of women especially since the “[erotic overinvestment] contains the potential to subvert the [guilt or illness].”[5]  The next scene is such an example.  When Madeleine enters the room to join Scottie she is in only a red silk robe and is accompanied by tonal, sultry music.  Taking a seat on the floor next to the fire, Scottie interrogates her about falling into the San Francisco Bay and other activities throughout the day.  Even though the shadow of uneasiness and supernatural is present, the chosen angles and shots of nearly all close-ups of Novak accentuate her beauty to the point that she almost mesmerizes her audience.
            After getting over these two dilemmas, the characters on the screen must establish who holds the power.  Silverman says, “The power relations which are inscribed into classic cinema through its scopic regime are by no means as stable as is the regime itself… [T]he identification of the female subject with specularity and the male subject with vision does not necessarily assure the later a dominant position.”[6] However, true to classic cinema, the male gaze dominates throughout Vertigo.  The concept of the power of the male gaze is used before the sighted in the last paragraph.  Right as Madeleine appears in the doorframe of Scottie’s bedroom, the camera shows Scottie from a low-angle shot (giving the feeling of power) and giving a longing gaze in her direction, definitely not from Madeleine’s point of view.  The camera then switches to Madeleine, with the feeling of apprehensiveness and exposure in the red robe, from Scottie’s exact point of view.
            In the end, Silverman claims that “writing a narrative by means of which [the woman] is defined.”[7]  Which to Silverman, who uses the works of Mulvey, “the woman is made to confess by a male character.”  Nothing is more explicit to this example than Scottie’s craze and need to transform Judy back into Madeleine.  Hitchcock even plays with this idea of confession when Judy sits in silhouette form in her apartment aptly stating that she reminds Scottie of “her”, while her profile is a reflection of the shots back in Scottie’s apartment.  Over time, Scottie becomes manically obsessed with the type of clothes Judy should wear, what color her hair should be and how it should be worn.  When the time comes that Judy put together the full package for Scottie, Hitchcock creates a green haze across the camera as if she is coming out of a dream and confessing that she is the woman he has been laboring over. 
            Even as Vertigo is considered one of the greatest American movies, it can be difficult to realize the role of women in the film.  Acclaimed movie critic Roger Ebert has even stated, “Every Hitchcock woman was humiliated.”[8]  So while the role of woman seemed to be well defined in Vertigo, she actually remains undefined and common.  In an idealistic world, the women, especially Kim Novak, harnessed the power of the suture through her beauty and wit.  However, it is through the gaze of the man, Jimmy Stewart, which defines the woman and her role.



[1] Silverman, Kaja.  Excerpts from chapter 5 The Subject of Semiotics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983).  230.
[2] Silverman, 230.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Silverman, 230.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Silverman, 233.
[7] Silverman, 234.
[8] Ebert, Roger.  Vertigo (1958).  rogerebert.com, October 13, 1996.  Web.  July 29, 2011.  <http://www.rogerebert.com/>

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Opposite Sides

I feel like I've been on the emotional movie roller coaster today.  Here's something else you should know about me... I am not a particularly big fan of horror movies.  No siree.  And guess what we watched in class today.  Yup.

However, Videodrome isn't your typical slasher horror movie... it's something called a body horror... and I have yet to look up what that exactly means because I'm too scared to click on the link in Wikipedia.  But, I guess if you want to watched a odd 80's horror movie, I guess this would be a good one to watch. 

OK.  So, when I got home I decided to watch Wall-E.  Man do I love that movie.  As many times as I've seen it, it still amazes me that the animators can create emotion in a traditionally emotionless robot but at the end make Wall-E plain and emotionless before he changes back.  Sorry, spoiler, but I figure the movie's been out long enough. 

I also need to do my paper due on Friday... but I am, again notoriously, a procrastinator.  I can't get myself to do something until it's right up to the last minute.  Huff... anyway, so this was an incredibly short one!  Thanks!

Monday, July 25, 2011

I finally watched...

Requiem for a Dream.

Wow does that movie make me never want to shoot up heroine... or really anything... ever.  Someone once said to me, "Really, Darren Aronofsky can't make a bad movie."  I'm starting to believe it.  Because Requiem for a Dream (RFAD) was beautifully messed up.  It's also kind of jarring to see Jennifer Connelly play a part like that.  I mean growing up watching her in The Labyrinth, and seeing beautiful movies like The Rocketeer and A Beautiful Mind you're just kind of like "WHAT THE HELL!!" 

So anyway... I love the use of the short and quick shots which really help with the pace of the characters minds.  The use of sound is amazing.  Not to mention the different lenses that were used throughout... I don't know many directors who can use a fisheye lens as effectively as Aronofsky in this movie. 

Then aside from Aronofsky, a friend of mine said ".... sexy like Jared Leto in RFAD..."  Which before this movie I didn't think Jared Leto was sexy at all... but my mind has been changed.  Not to mention how AWESOME Ellen Burstyn was in this.  Just watch the movie and you'll understand.



To get over this wacky movie, I rented out "The Kim Novak Collection" and watched Pal Joey... a very meh movie musical with Frank Sinatra, Rita Hayward, and, of course, Kim Novak.  And now you're probably wondering "Why Kim Novak?"  Well, because I more or less fell in love with her in Vertigo and it keeps the Woman's World Cup alive (because she looks like Hope Solo to me)... please refer down a few posts. 







I pretty much skipped through most of the movie to get to the parts with Novak in it.  And I have to say, after seeing her in Vertigo it was kind of goofy watching her in Pal Joey.  But overall, it was happy and go-lucky which is what I was looking for.  I'm currently in the middle of Bell, Book and Candle which is sort of like Bewitched ... but with Kim Novak and Jimmy Stewart :p  So that's pretty much all for now. 

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Film Theory

... is kicking my ass.  I really do get that it's important and helps us understand how cinema is used and all... but GAH!  Sometimes I don't understand how people think like that.  We just got done thinking about how the set up of a theater helps us convey what's on the screen.  "Why do we willingly sit there and watch horror movies?"  .... because we want to?  I would that if you paid a $7-$9 ticket you would want to! (sigh)

So anyway, since HP, I've sat down and watched a few other movies.

I watched Ridley Scott's Robin Hood recorded from Starz or something.  My niece said she didn't like it and so I was a little weary going into the movie.  However, like I've said before, I am in love with Ridley Scott and so I thought of that while I watched.  It's hard to understand at first that the story is supposed to be before Robin Hood became an outlaw and living in Sherwood Forest.  But once you get over that initial hump, then everything makes sense and I could enjoy the movie more.

I wasn't a huge fan of Cate Blanchett before this movie (although I have a deep respect of her acting abilities after watching Elizabeth) but after I LOVE her.  I think she's great.  I think it was also because there was a different side of her from Elizabeth and Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Chrystal Skull (blech).  There was a strong but vulnerability to Maid Marian and I really liked what she brought to the character.  That and I don't think I've ever really noticed how gorgeous she is!  So, kudos you Cate Blanchett.

Then aside from Cate, I've always been in love with Russel Crowe since The Gladiator (Ridley Scott!) and A Beautiful Mind.  So yay :)



The same night I ended Robin Hood, Treasure and I decided to start watching Burlesque.  Seriously... it's a bad movie.  If you have seen any of the following:  Coyote Ugly, Chicago, and/or Moulin Rouge you've seen Burlesque.  And actually, I have a lot of respect for Christina Aguilera as an artist, but this movie just ruined it for me.  The only redeeming qualities it has for me is Kristen Bell (I am a big Veronica Mars fan) and Cher.  Other than that... blah.  And it hurts to know that Xtina's character came from Iowa :(  I didn't even finish the movie because it was that predictable.

... there's not even a picture online I like enough to post here.

So at work I watched North by Northwest by none other than the wonderful Alfred Hitchcock.  And if you say that he's not one of the most profound directors of our time I WILL FIGHT YOU.  I hadn't watched a Cary Grant film in a while and the movie reminded me how much I love him.  The acting is so crisp and witty that watching him being chased around it just fun instead of a thrill.

Again, Eva Marie Saint the whole time reminded me of a girl I knew from college.  I think Mr. Hitchcock just has a knack for casting girls that mess with my head.  Or was he doing that for everyone ... hmmmmm.  j/k, probably not.  I hadn't paid as close attention to Hitchcock movies was I am now viewing them over again (I had a collection of his movies on VHS growing up) and between North by Northwest and Vertigo both main women are aged 26.  Coincidence? 

I also love how the twist of the move isn't the climax.  It's like OOH she's a double agent!  But that's not the end!  I dunno... it's just great.  Not to mention the graphics to the opening credits are awesome.



My niece informed me that in this scene part of Saint's lines had been flubbed out.  However, I must have grabbed the copy that had put the lines back in.  :/

Then while I was away this last weekend, I started to watch West Side Story... but by the middle of the movie I was having an online argument with my niece (the fake kind that you spam someone's Facebook wall with).  All I could think about though was that Maria's voice wasn't Natalie Wood's.  She actually doesn't have a great voice at all... not even good.  Go watch the movie Gypsy with her in it. 

Also today in Film Theory, we are talking about the roll of the woman within movies.  First we watched Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story... as told with Barbie dolls.  Wow that movie is just... cool in an awkward way.  It's just weird watching Barbie chug down ipecac syrup and Ex-Lax.  That and my TA informed us that the director (Todd Haynes) had started shaving away at Barbie to make her! skinnier!



Then we watched a short movie called Illusions directed by Julie Dash in 1982 although the movie takes place probably in the early 1940's since the war was going on.  First, it was about a black woman who had used her singing abilities to dub over a white woman's singing voice (very a la Singin' In The Rain).  She later admits that the other studios had never paid her before National Studios, where a woman exec. forces her boss to pay the black woman.  It it later revealed that this woman exec. is actually a black woman also and that her life within the movie business is an illusion.


Lastly we watched a movie called Removed which is some old porn movies but the woman had been scratched and colored out.  So we are left with the man... and all the other props surrounding a porn.  So yeah... I've now officially watched a porn in class.  And extremely awkward to watch when you're the only girl in the class.


Other than that... I just keep chuggin' away at Dr. Who and rewatching episodes of Castle.

As far as my half marathon training is going... it's been so hot here in Iowa this last week.  I've been going out and kicking my soccer ball around but it's been so hot that I haven't really made an effort to go to the gym.  I really need to tomorrow.

Lastly, a shout out to the US Woman's Soccer Team!  You still make your country proud!

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Harry Potter 2.0

Yup... I went to see HP for a second time.

Just some small things that I noticed.  Please be advised that this whole next post will be from the movie and if you haven't seen it, these may spoil it a little for you :)


*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~



Alright then.

1)  When Hermione, Harry and Ron are escaping from Gringotts, I really enjoyed David Yates little homage to Star Wars: A New Hope.  The part when the guards have found the trio and are shooting their spells at them.  Hermione is on one side of the aisle while Ron and Harry are at the other.  They are yelling at one another for an escape plan and it is Hermione who basically says "Someone has to save our skins!" and shoots out the gate to hop onto the dragon.  So yay... Star Wars...

2)  Ok, I understand that Snape was in love with Lilly Potter and to the effect that his patronus changed to a doe because of that.  But when Harry says "My mother's patronus was a doe, wasn't it?"  and asks why Snape's would be too... all Dumbledore can say is "It's not so curious when you think about it."  What's that mean?  Does it mean something deeper than "well duh, Snape was in love with your mother..."?  (huff)... Sometimes I feel like Dumbledore has a little Jesus in him... just can't give a straight answer...

3)  Did anyone else feel like the story was going to slip the rug under us during the Pensive scene and it's like "SUPRISE!!! Snape's really your father!"

4)  What exactly is the purpose of the Resurrection Stone... other than you can talk to dead people?  The purpose is to bring those who are dead back to life.  So, did the stone keep Harry alive when he died?  And if that's so, how does it work since he dropped it before he marched onto Voldemort.

5)  I really wish Harry took the Elder Wand and give ol' Voldemort a good Avada Kadarva!  As Treasure said after watching the movie "You never know where those flakes went to!!"

6)  and to reiterate what a friend of my asked about the disappearance of Huffelpuff:



7)  Please don't take your kids to the movie's if they're not ready.  It's a big waste of time and money for you and the people around you..... (kids in front of me kept looking at me during the movie).

That is all!  Will just edit this post if I think of more things.

** EDIT **

1)  To me, I would like to think that since love is the divine factor that kept Harry Potter alive as a baby, that Snape's continuing love of Lily also protected Harry.  Thoughts!?

Friday, July 15, 2011

Harry Potter

For those of us who grew up with Harry Potter, it's sad to see him go.  I can honestly say that my childhood was magical because of J.K. Rowling. 

I promise not to give out spoilers (which include those in the book) without proper notification.

In all, this movie was probably the best.  The best balance between action, drama and comedy (blech!).  I don't think I've cried that much in a movie since I saw ... well I can't remember what the last movie made me cry that much.  Titanic maybe?  I mean... to the point that I was sniffling.  Wait... it was Disney's Meet the Robinsons.  Really great movie.

Anyway, I just want to go through what we saw a previews.  I just think it's absolutely HILARIOUS that big named directors have decided to make children/young adult/think Lassie movies for this coming Christmas season.  Steven Spielberg is making War Horse.  Not something I would typically associate Spielberg.  And then Martin Scorsese has made Hugo.... really super bright rich colors about a boy and roboty thing.  However, within the previews was a small trailer for The Dark Knight Rises.  Will be making a trip to the theater for that one.  As well as Cowboys and Aliens.

SO... without going into too much detail, I just want to say CAN WE PLEASE cut the silly little comedic impromptus (imprompti?)!?  I swear, this is just a curse of the whole series... a nice dramatic and heartfelt scene and moment but then we have a little one liner, or a silly cut to an over the top expression.

Maybe it was because I went to the midnight showing so I'm watching the movie with people who will giggle, laugh, cry and clap at every thing David Yates wants.  He's probably thinking in his head the whole time "Let's just shoot this little snide because the Potties will love it!!"  (grumble grumble)  Well thanks for breaking the Suture Theory for me everyone!  I couldn't properly suture myself into the movie!!

So yes, Treasure and I dressed up to go... which is the first time I and he have ever done that.  We got to the theater at 9 and were FAR from the beginning of the line.  In fact, we were told the 1st people in line had been out there since 5am.  But man, did we see some cool costumes.  My favorite was 2 girls dressed as the golden snitch.

I will forever think that Emma Watson will be a class act and I hope she is happy with her life after Harry Potter.  I mean, same for everyone else in the cast, but I just have a soft spot for her :)  I think she is every girl's hero, and she is a great one to follow.  I hope none of them burn out and life on only as "that one kid who played (fill in the blank)".

I wish I could post the final shot of the 3 of them at the end of the movie... but no one has pirated that onto Google images :/

So for now, Mischief Managed.


And back to the movie...

SPOILERS

Does anyone else think that the adult versions of Harry, Hermione and Ron seemed weird?  To the point you almost wishes they just found some other actors?  To me I think they were also digitally edited a little.  I mean, they all did see a little bit older.... but not 19.  Maybe Ron, but definitely not Hermione.

Does anyone else wonder "Why the hell would they introduce a time turner in the 3rd book and never use it again?!"  That one just runs through my mind all the time.

Wow was Snape's death brutal.  I think it's almost worse with the thudding leaving the imagination to imagine the actual death.  Damn.

I still can't take Molly Weasley seriously when she said "Not my daughter, bitch."  It's just so out of character for me.  I don't know.  Not my favorite line.  I also though Bellatrix deserved a better or more glorified death... just because she's done all these awful things that we deserved a worse death to me.  I mean we watched her torture Hermione!

**EDIT** I also feel that Hermione's small stunt as Bellatrix Lestrange did justice to Helena Bonham Carter as an actress.   I think Carter did an excellent job mimicking Watson's little movements.  One in particular I noticed was when Hermione says "Good Day" right as the group entered the ally.  The way an exasperated Hermione would throw her eyes into the ceiling in frustration was done well by Carter.

Finally... HARRY AND HERMIONE SHOULD'VE ENDED UP TOGETHER!!!  It's all in the books until J.K. explicit says Ron and Hermione are together.  NO NO NO!!  But what is remains and that's how she wanted it.

I feel like there's a weird void.  I can't believe it's over.  Although, Treasure did say that he heard a rumor that J.K. has thought about writing more books from the HP series.  We'll see!

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Vertigo

Ok, seriously this one will be short.

We watched Vertigo today.  I was late coming in because I wanted to watch the end of the US Woman's game... which ended up being totally unnecessary since they beat France pretty bad.  It was nice to see Alex Morgan score.  I would've been happy to see anyone score, but it was just nice to see someone who doesn't score very often score.

I came into the movie right as Jimmy Stewart was hanging off the building and his partner falls of the edge and dies.  Aside that this all has to do with our readings by Christian Metz and the psychology of a film... da da da... what I couldn't get out of my head is HOW freakin' much Kim Novak and Hope Solo looked alike to me.  The whole movie.  Right after coming late to class to watch the game.  I'm thinking to myself "That's right Hope Solo.  Just a big wave comes crashing in while you and Jimmy Stewart share that first kiss."

But, you can decide for yourself what you think:


I know Hope is a brunette now, but still.  I think they look pretty gosh darn similar!
Anyway, that's all for now :)  Told you it'd be short!  

PS - anyone else think Megan Rapinoe should just start the game on Sunday?