How Is Dramatic Meaning Created in the Opening Scene of Forrest gump Essay

Academy Awards, 1995 Golden Globe Awards, 1995 MTVMovie Awards, 1995 People? s Choice Awards, 2005 American Film Institute Awards andvarious other ones. It was an adaption of a novel of the same name, by Winston Groom. Robert Zemeckis was the director of the movie, and he made great decisions about thecamera techniques to be used in each scene. In 1996, a restaurant with the name? Bubba Gump? was open in honour of the movie, and surprisingly there is one in thePeak Galleria in Hong Kong! The opening scene of the movie is filmed very beautifully, especially with thefeather floating in the air, because it creates the mood of the whole piece.

Also, themusic and sounds chosen to accompany the opening scene, contributes to the tone of the entire movie. From right the beginning of the film, the feather is already floating around in theair. This white feather is a symbolic object that counts as a sign. The whiteness of itseems to show the purity and innocence Forrest has, and his enthusiastic personality,where he is determined to do whatever it takes to fulfill his own, and his friends andfamilies? dreams.

It also seem to symbolize the famous quote that his mom always said,? Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you? e gonna get.? With thefeather floating to random places, e. g. on top of cars, on people? s shoulders, on thefloor? It shows how random life can be, and how no one ever knows what lies in theirpath of life, what obstacles they will have to overcome, and what their destiny is. A very interesting effect the feather is shot from in the opening scene is that it isa extreme long shot of different parts of the town, allowing the audience to adapt thesetting of the film into their minds, whilst the feather is shot from multiple angles,sometimes close up, and sometimes using medium shots.

With the words and the townbackground, the feather interestingly, is still the focal point of the whole shot, andunintentionally, your eyes follow wherever it is going even when the background ischanged drastically. When the feather is shot in the sky, it is from a low angle, which shows theimportance of it as a sign, so it feels as if the feather is superior to the audience, whoare inferior in this point of the film. There are also several shots of the feather floatingabove the forest with lots of greenery; the colours really contrast, with the white on thegreen, which also helps draw the audience? attention to the tiny white feather in theforeground.

The two minutes with the feather as the focal point of the shots are shotfrom different distances and various techniques. Sometimes, the feather is close up, andcomparing it with the size of the buildings in the background, it almost seems bigger. During the whole process of introducing the feather and the symbolism behind it, thecamera technique used is track, because the camera just follows wherever the feathergoes. When the feather lands on a man? s shoulder and on the car, a medium shot isused, and its shot from a high angle.

Normally, it is when a low angle is used that the audience feels inferior, but in this situation, the feather still seems somewhat superior,and looking down at it, feels like the audience is looking at the whole theory of life usinga different point of view. With various examples of the feather landing on differentplaces, it shows how many unexpected things could happen in life, and no one knowswhat their destiny will be. After floating for a long time in the wind, the feather finally ends up on theground next to Forrest Gump’s shoe and stops moving.

A close up of the shoe along withthe feather is taken, which emphasizes once again, the importance of the feather, andthe shoe as well. So far, the camera technique used is still tracking. The shoe is also asign because it shows how Forrest has managed to overcome many obstaclesthroughout life, to be in the position he is now. The shoe is significant, because as achild, Forrest had a problem with his spine, so he couldn? t walk properly.

He starts running and breaks his leg braces, and through all thepain and suffering, manages to start running, and learns that his legs are functional. Soespecially since his shoes are dirty in the shot, it portrays that he has worked very hardand overcame many obstacles wearing those shoes. Also, Forrest states that his motheralways says ? Shoes can tell a lot about a person. Where they go. Where they havebeen.? The close up continues on when Forrest picks up the feather with his hand, andduring that instance, a tilt is used where the audience looks at Forrest from his feet upto his head.

This is a great way to introduce the character. Whilst Forrest examining thefeather, the audience sees just the top half of his body, which means that a mediumshot was used. It is effective to use a medium shot for this part of the film, because theaudience should really focus on the facial expression on Forrest? s face to see what hefeels about the feather. The medium shot continues to be in use when Forrest placesthe feather in his suitcase. A track is used to show Forrest using a medium shot once again afterwards, toshow him staring into the difference, this quickly cuts into a long shot of him still lookinginto the distance.

A sense of mystery is created because the audience members want tofind out what is so interesting that he keeps on staring at. Then, a bus comes along andblocks the view of Forrest, and the connection between the audience and Forrest isbroken. The camera remains still until the woman who comes off the bus sits on thebench next to Forrest. A zoom is used here, which is quite effective, because essentially,the audience really wants to know what will happen between Forrest and this woman. Most likely, they will begin chatting, which is why there is a zoom used to basically seewhat will happen.

After a bit of chatting between the two, the camera quickly zoomsinto a close up of Forrest? s face. This is a very important and beneficial shot, because itgradually slips into the next scene here. Where Forrest starts squinting his eyes? Overall, a variety of camera movements, angles and distances are used in theopening scene of the well ? known film Forrest Gump. The main sign is the feather,which is in nearly the whole of the opening scene. The significance of it is shown withthe comparison to Forrest? s mothers? theory of life.

Movie “The Blind Side” Essay

I have selected the movie; “The Blind Side”, it is the true story of Michael Oher, a homeless teenager who was able to overcome great obstacles in order to become a first round draft pick in the NFL. Michael Oher had a rough childhood as he didn’t know his father and his mother was addicted to drugs. He was in and out of foster homes and at times living on the street. The football coach at Wingate, a private school, saw football potential in Michael and got him admitted into the prestigious school.

However, he had learning disabilities and still did not have a permanent home. Leigh Anne Tuohy, the mother of a Wingate student, and wife of the owner of several Taco Bell restaurants, finds out about Michael’s predicament and invites him to stay the night at their home.

Once Michael is in the Tuohy home, a close relationship develops between him and the Tuohys. The one night stay turns into a permanent living situation for Oher.

Leigh Anne makes it her personal mission to make sure Michael has everything he needs emotionally and academically to graduate from high school and to get admitted to Ole Miss. After a successful college football campaign, Oher was drafted by the Baltimore Ravens in the first round in 2009, thus fulfilling his dream. This movie has it all. As you watch it, you experience the emotions of both sadness and joy, as you watch this young man go from being homeless to being drafted in the first round of the 2009 NFL draft.

Analysis of Sociologically Relevant Film: Forrest Gump Essay

“The world will never be the same once you’ve seen it through the eyes of…” Forrest Gump: a film chronicling the life of a mentally challenged man present during three of the most distinctive and dynamic decades in American history. While on the surface lies a heartwarming and inspirational story, the underlying narrative tends to explore progression of American society while depoliticizing history. Throughout the film Forrest is directly involved in major events of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, yet he never shows any initiative of his own.

What is the filmmaker trying to insinuate?

Sociological analysis

An understanding of Forrest’s background in an important and characterizing element in the film. Disadvantaged by a terrible spine condition and a low IQ, Forrest struggles through childhood in small-minded Greenbow, Alabama. Due to his mental disabilities, Forrest becomes the victim of academic discrimination, which his mother fights desperately to resolve. “He might be a bit on the slow side, but my boy Forrest is going to get the same opportunities as everyone else,” she stated to the principal of Greenbow County Central School.

“He’s not going to some special school to learn to how to re-tread tires.” (Gump 1995) Forrest’s mother was determined. Taking advantage of this, the principal coerced Forrest’s mother into trading a sexual favor for enrollment in school. In addition to these unsettling events, Forrest finds himself tormented and isolated by neighborhood children and townspeople who seem incapable of treating him with anything but reproach and disdain.

Forrest was also an active part of many important events, including protests lead by George Wallace against desegregation, the Vietnam War, the Ping Pong Diplomacy period, anti-war activism lead by Abbie Hoffman, Black Panther Party meetings, and the Watergate scandal. It would be reasonable to say that being part of such important events and would make him vulnerable to the social forces of the times, yet his lack of critical thought as a result of low intelligence seemed to indicate the complete opposite– he remained wholly oblivious and ignorant of their significance.

During George Wallace’s “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” protest, Forrest stands curiously in the background, more interested in his surroundings rather than the actual protest. During the Vietnam War, Forrest never questions the morality or the agenda of the U.S. government, and receives the Congressional Medal of Honor for his efforts. His entire experience during the Vietnam War can be summed up into one conversation between him and the Drill Sergeant: “Gump! What’s your sole purpose in this Army?” “To do whatever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!” (Gump 1995) Still, the most dismaying portion of impassive responses glorified in this film can be contributed to Forrest’s careless involvement in the anti-Vietnam War rally lead by Abbie Hoffman. He was entirely clueless as to the purpose of the anti-war movements. His view of Abbie Hoffman’s role? “There was this man, giving a little talk… And every time he said the “F” word, people, for some reason, well, they’d cheer.”

Though the focus of the film is directed towards Forrest Gump, the effects of social forces are most often expressed and implied through Jenny Curran. Forrest’s generally unobservant nature contrasts harshly with Jenny’s forthright and independent character. Without Jenny, we would have a collectively unrealistic and uncertain portrayal of many occurrences that contributed to the structure of today’s society. Unlike Forrest, Jenny was consciously and intentionally involved in the counterculture movements of the 60’s, as she is seen trailing the countryside with fellow “hippies,” participating in anti-war movements, and secretly involving herself in Black Panther Party meetings. Before Jenny sets off on what turns out to be downward spiral towards debasement, she speaks to Forrest of her motives. “…I want to reach people on a personal level. I want to be able to say things, just one-to-one.” (Gump 1995) However, Jenny’s plans for a better society are brought to a staggering halt when Jenny develops a fatal disease stemming from precarious drug use.

Conclusion

Although Tom Hanks (Star in Forrest Gump) affirms that the film was “non-political and thus non-judgmental,” the previous examples show implications otherwise. Though the film does take a stand against disability discrimination by shedding some light on the difficulties that accompany being handicap during a callous time in American history, it’s motives were generally ambiguous and unclear. Based on the filmmakers unattractive outlook on counterculturalism, his lack of discretion when touching on issues like desegregation and independence, as well as his insensitive approach to the deaths of activists, we can arrive at the following conclusion: the harrowing experiences exposed in this film can be easily discarded as something warranted only by devoted individuals who attempt to foster humanity.

“How does Alfred Hitchcock explore the duality of human nature in the film Psycho?” Essay

Alfred Hitchcock uses many ways to explore the duality of human nature in his films, especially in the 1960 horror thriller Psycho. The duality of human nature represents our inner self, aspects that are mainly opposites, the light showing good, the dark showing evil, the natural and the unnatural, are just some examples of human nature. Hitchcock explored the duality of human nature using ways such as lighting, dialogue, camera angles, music, comparing and contrasting what different characters would do when facing the same problem and individuation.

According to Carl Jung, individuation is when a person confronts they inner side (usually the dark, negative and evil side). He believed that successful individuation meant that a person not only confronted their dark side, but conquered it as well and that people needed to recognise and confront the negative aspects of their personality or their “dark” side would destroy the person. This means that inside everyone, there is a darker side, an evil and bad side, that must be confronted, or it will ruin you.

By looking at the two main characters Norman and Marion, and two minor characters, Sam and Lila, we can see the duality of human nature.

Both Marion and Norman are being confronted with their inner dark self, yet, Marion conquers her dark side, while Norman lets it take over his life. Sam and Lila, however, are mostly seen as good and “natural”. There are many key scenes throughout the movie Physco, which explore the duality of human nature. Some of these scenes include the opening scene, the scene in which Marion is driving away after taking the money and the parlour scene. The blackness of Psycho’s opening credits sequence symbolizes death and the opening scene of Psycho starts with a pan view of the cityscape of Arizona.

The shot, from a wide pan into a dark bedroom, leads the viewer into a dark, secretive space, showing the viewer immediately that we will witness something secretive and dark occurring during the film. The viewer also knows that the theme of hiding from something is established, as the two are hiding their affair, and Sam is hiding, or shying away, from marriage to Marion. We learn that the two have money problems, from Sam, who says, “I sweat to pay off my father’s debts and he’s in his grave. I sweat to pay my

ex-wife alimony, and she’s living on the other side of the world somewhere”, and “A couple of years and my debts will be paid off, and if she ever remarries the alimony stops. ” Marion knows the only problem between the two of them is money, and that if it wasn’t for money, the two could be together. It is at this time, that Marion begins to confront her inner self, the need for more money, so she herself can marry Sam, and not have to worry about her job. When Marion returns to work after her “lunch hour” she complains of a headache.

When Marion’ s boss asks her to deposit $40,000 for him, “I don’t even want it in the office over the weekend. Put it in the safe deposit box in the bank and we’ll get him to give us a check on Monday instead… ” Marion sees this as a chance for her to finally be with Sam and solve all her financial problems. Behind Marion’s desk are paintings of sprawling lands, including images of trees, woods and natural landscape. These images juxtapose her isolation and show her desires for freedom. The scene in which Marion is driving away from Phoenix is also a key scene in which Hitchcock explores the duality of human nature.

We see Marion driving away, after she leaves Phoenix and after she meets with the Police Officer, trades her car, and as she does so, the audience sees how uneasy she feels, the tension in her expressions, and we hear the imaginary voices she is hearing in her head, about what may be happening because she has taken the $40,000. Marion is thinking about what the consequences of her “theft” were, and what is happening back in Phoenix. The audience hears the voices in Marion’s head, the voices of Marion’s boss, her sister, what Marion is thinking. The audience is put into Marion’s mind.

We feel the tension when she is being interrogated by the Police Officer and in a way, we feel relieved when she is let off, even though what she did was morally wrong. In many places in this scene, we are put into the point of view from Marion’s perspective, which brings duality of human nature not only to her, but to us as well, as we feel like WE are in the scene. Hitchcock does this as he wants the audience to think, what they would do if we were Marion’s position, which questions our own duality. Marion, while she is driving away with the stolen money, has currently let her dark, inner side take over her.

She is taking advantage of her boss’s trust in her and is doing this out of personally greed and wealth. Here, Hitchcock is showing us what giving in to your inner dark side can result in. One of the major key scenes in Psycho that shows how Hitchcock explored the duality of human nature is the parlor scene, between Marion and Norman. At the start of the scene, after Norman returns from the house with milk and food, they converse briefly outside on the porch, and we see a reflection of Norman on the window. This shows his other side, his “mother” side, which has just been “lit” in him.

The framings of Norman and Marion are unnatural. She is roundly lit, while he is being lit at angles and relatively more dim than Marion. He is a man, offering milk to a woman, and the openness he shows towards her symbolize the fact that he has chosen her as his next victim. However, it is not till they go into the actual parlor that Hitchcock explores the duality of human nature even more. The parlor room is quite small, which forces Marion and Norman to sit quite closely to each other. Even though they are both in the same room, the lighting the two receive is considerably different.

Marion sits near a lamp, and her frame looks more lit, and well-rounded, giving her a glowing and warm feeling, as if she is good and positive. It appears to seem that she is redeeming herself from what bad she did before. Norman, however, has a frame with many shadows- a symbol of darkness and evilness and the lighting on him seems both angular and irregular, and unlike Marion, we cannot see the whole of Normans face, like as if Norman is hiding something. Also, while Marion looks like she is at total ease, Norman seems to be irregular and the atmospheres around him seems to be evil and dark.

During almost the whole scene, Norman’s left side of his face is the only side that’s visible, while we can see the whole of Marion’s face. While both characters do not look to out of place in they individual frames, when they are put side by side, there is a clear contrast between Marion and Norman. Marion, in light colored clothing, seems to represent goodness and normalness, while Norman, in dark colored clothing, seems to represent evil, darkness, and a sense of abnormality. Here, we see very, very clearly the duality of human nature.

Marion symbolizing the good, and Norman symbolizing the bad. But there is even more to this scene that adds onto the duality of human nature. We learn that Norman has a hobby for stuffing birds, and we see them, around the walls of the parlor, the camera often using a low angle shot to capture them. They seem to look over what is going on, and as they appear above Norman, look as though they are overpowering him, making his decisions and such. This shows that while Marion is trying to conquer her inner side, Norman has already let it conquer him.

Norman asks Marion “What are you running away from? ” and Marion seems shocked that he would ask. But when Norman says, “No. People never run away from anything. The rain didn’t last long, did it. You know what I think? I think that we’re all in our private traps–clamped in them. And none of us can ever get out. We–we scratch and claw, but only at the air–only at each other. And for all of it, we never budge an inch”, Marion begins to realize that she needs to go back and get out of her “trap” instead of trying to run away from it.

We also find out that Norman himself is also in a trap, but he says, “I was born in mine. I don’t mind it anymore”, it shows us that Norman has not been able to conquer his inner side and has let it conquer him. Unlike Norman though, Marion does conquer her inner dark self and we know this when she says, “I’m very tired. And I have a long drive tomorrow–all the way back to Phoenix”, “I stepped into a private trap back there and I’d like to go back and try to pull myself out of it before it’s too late for me too.

” This again emphasises the point that Marion is the good and natural side while Norman is the dark, evil and unnatural side. So by just looking at some of these key scenes in the film Psycho, we know that Alfred Hitchcock used many ways to explore the duality of human nature. He used lighting to bring some characters into “good light” and show the “goodness” in some and the “darkness” in others. He also used camera angles, the show the sense of normality in some and abnormality in others, making them natural or unnatural.

What different characters said also explored the duality of human nature, as the dialogue was very important, as it gave us an inside view to what the characters were thinking as well as what they said. Individuation- confronting and conquering your inner dark side, also explores the duality of human nature. Comparing and contrasting characters was another way Hitchcock explored the duality of human nature as he compared the good characters to the bad, and what different characters would do under the same problem. So, it is clear to see, that Hitchcock used many successful ways to explore the duality of human nature in the film Psycho.

Unique Characteristics of Soviet Montage Essay

Unlike Montage where by a combination series of short shots are edited into a sequence to condense space, time, and information, Soviet Montage on the other hand is a style of filmmaking that is evolved to immerse the audience in a story and disguise technique was turned upside down in order to create the opposite emotional effect to bring the audience to the edge of their seat, and in the case of the Odessa Steps sequence, to push the viewer towards a feeling of vertigo.

In a simpler form, Soviet Montage combination series of short shots are edited into a sequence to create symbolic meaning. One main characteristic of Soviet Montage films is the downplaying of individual characters in the centre of attention whereby single characters are shown as members of different social classes and are representing a general type or class imitating Marxist Concept which believe more on society rather than individual .For Instance, in Eisenstein’s Strike there is only one character named individually in the entire film.

This proves the theory portraying collectivism rather individualism to propagate how united are the people against whatever political climate in Russia. The central aspect of Soviet Montage style was the area of editing. Cuts should stimulate the spectator. In opposition to continuity editing Montage cutting often created either overlapping or elliptical temporal relations. Elliptical cutting creates the opposite effect. A part of an action is left out, so the event takes less time than it would in reality. Elliptical editing was often used in the form of the jump cut. For instance, in Strike, Eisenstein cuts from a police officer to a butcher who kills an animal in the form of a jump cut. This is to indicate the butcher not being part of the story but should be able to create or make the viewer think about the relation and come to a conclusion as if the workers were slaughtered like animals in reality.

5 Methods of Montage:

1. Metric Montage – The editing work is done according to a specific number of frames, follows by cutting to the subsequent shot regardless of the event within the image. This is done to draw out the fundamental response of the audience. 2. Rhythmic Montage – this is done through cutting based on continuity, producing visual continuity from edit to edit. A very fine example of Rhythmic montage is from II Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo where the protagonist and the two other antagonists face each other in a three-way duel. 3. Tonal Montage – This uses the emotional meaning of the shots, to emphasize a response from the audience in a more complicated manner than Metric or Rhythmic Montage. For instance, a sleeping baby would express his or her calmness and relaxation. The prime example for this montage method from Eisenstein’s The Battleship Potemkin, where audience can witness the death of a revolutionary sailor Vakulinchuk.

4. Overtonal Montage – it is a collection of Metric, Rhythmic and Tonal Montage to create its effect on the audience for a more complex effect. It is best shown in a film called Pudovkin’s Mother, where the men are seen as workers walking towards a protestation at their own factory and later in movie, the protagonist uses ice to escape. 5. Intellectual Montage – it is used as a bridge to connect and create meaning completely outside the depiction, unlike continuity editing, where images are created in a smooth space or time. In general, ‘intellectual montage’ is when the image is not represented by a particular idea. Basically, it uses shots which, combined, emphasize an intellectual meaning. The effect is shown through conflict such as juxtapose shots that have no direct relationship.

The best example for Intellectual Montage is from a film called Strike. In this film, cut of shots include striking workers being assaulted and a bull being butchered. This is done as metaphor to show how workers are being treated like cattle. The butcher is here a nondiegetic element. Anything that is part of the film story world is diegetic. A nondiegetic element exists outside the story world. There is no connection between the slaughters of the animal. The use of such nondiegetic shots was a total direct portrayal of Eisenstein’s theory on intellectual montage creating effects through conflict such as the juxtaposing of shots that have no direct connection as all.

It is also shown in a film called The Godfather, where killing scene was shown during the baptism of Michael’s nephew. The whole scene was to show the murder “baptize” Michael into a life of crime. Another example is from a film called Apocalypse Now, juxtaposing shot was used in the execution of Colonel Kurtz.

Another example of contemporary films adopting intellectual montage would be In Boogie Nights, Dirk Diggler announces at the conclusion of filming a pornographic scene that he can “do it again”. There is then a quick cut to a champagne bottle uncorking at a post-shoot party. This particular scene represents both ejaculation and Dirk’s celebratory initiation into the world of porn.

In a nutshell, Souviet Montage involves editing as a much more pronounced feature than in German Expressionism. It explores the ways in which each shot gained intensified meaning from its relationship to the shots deliberately placed before and after it. For Eisenstein it is in the tension (or conflict) between shots that meaning is created. Montage cinema demands that audiences continuously search for the meanings created by the juxtaposition of two shots and can be seen as alternative to the dominant continuity editing style of Hollywood cinema. Putting shots A and B together does not result in AB but in the emergence of X or Y – something new and larger than AB. This moved the theory of montage on from Kuleshov and Pudovkin who believed shots are like bricks in the way they construct a scene. Kuleshov and Pudovkin aimed at linkage rather than conflict

Soviet montage

“Following the Russian Revolution in October 1917, the new Soviet government faced the difficult task of controlling all sectors of life. Like other industries, the film production and distribution systems took years to build up a substantial output that could serve the aims of the new government. During World War I, there were a number of private production companies operating in Moscow and Petersburg. With most imports cut off, these companies did quite well making films for the domestic market. The most distinctive Russian films made during the mid-1910s were slow-paced melodramas that concentrated on bravura performances by actors playing characters caught in extremely emotional situations. Such films showcased the talents of Ivan Mozhukin and other popular stars and were aimed mainly at the large Russian audience, seldom being seen abroad. These film companies resisted the move made directly after the Revolution to nationalize all private property.

They simply refused to supply films to theaters operating under the control of the government. In July 1918, the government’s film subsection of the State Commission of Education put strict controls on the existing supplies of raw film stock. As a result, producers began hoarding their stock; the largest firms took all the equipment they could and fled to other countries. Some companies made films commissioned by the government, while hoping that the Reds would lose the Civil War and that things would return to pre-Revolutionary conditions.” [1] “These circumstances led the Bolshevik regime to develop policies designed to both reconstruct the national film industry, and train a new generation of film-makers. The Peoples Commissariat of Education, or Narkompros, was the government agency given responsibility for supervising the development of the arts and education within the Soviet Union, and, in August 1919, Lenin issued a decree which nationalised the film industry, and charged Narkompros with the responsibility of regulating ‘the entire photo and cinema trade and industry’.

That same year Narkompros established the Moscow State Film School, from which many of the most important montage film-makers would later emerge. A new genre of film-making which appeared during the civil war period was the agitka, or ‘small agitational works’. Single-reel agitka such as Za krasnoye znamya (For the Red Banner, 1919) were mainly directed at raising the morale of the Red Army, and drew on formats already developed within the prerevolutionary propaganda films which had appeared during the First World War. However, although the agitka were modest, straightforward propaganda pieces, they provided emerging filmmakers with experience of a new, and different form of film-making.

Films shot at the front had a documentary quality which distinguished them from more studio-bound, pre-revolutionary forms of film-making; whilst the imperative to complete films quickly led to the development of innovative editing, acting and other stylistic practices. The agitka film-makers also became actively involved in the fighting process, often filming in the midst of battle, and this degree of involvement was to breed a school of highly committed, politically engaged film-makers, which included Lev Kuleshov, Alexander Levitsky, Grigori Giber, Edward Tissé, Vladimir Kasyanov, Nikandr Turkin and Dziga Vertov.

One of the most portentous developments to occur within committed Soviet film-making in 1918 was the departure of the first ‘agit-train’. The mission of this particular train was to raise the morale of troops fighting to defeat the White Guard forces on the Eastern Front. To this end, the agit-train was equipped with a printing press, a troupe of actors, and a film crew headed by a cameraman later to become one of the most important within the Soviet cinema: Edward Tissé. Later agit-trains contained complete film-making systems, including laboratories and editing rooms, and this enabled films to be shot, processed, edited and projected at the front within a short space of time.” [2]

In the face of shortages of equipment and difficult living conditions, a few young filmmakers made tentative moves that would result in the development of a national cinema movement. “During the first half of the 1920s, when all these sweeping changes were revolutionizing the arts, a new generation of filmmakers was moving into the cinema. For them, the revolution was a crucial formative event partly because they were extraordinarily young. Indeed,Sergei Eisenstein was nicknamed “the old man” by his younger friends because he was all of twenty-six when he began his first feature film. Born in 1898, Eisenstein came from a middle-class family in Riga, Latvia. His education gave him fluency in Russian, English, German, and French. He recalled that, while on a visit to Paris at age 8, he saw a Melies film and became interested in the cinema.

Two years later he visited the circus and became similarly obsessed with this popular spectacle. Following his father’s wishes, he began studying engineering in 1915. Eisenstein participated in the revolution and during the civil war put his engineering skills to work building bridges. He was drawn to the arts, however, and during this same period he also decorated agit-trains and helped design many theatrical skits for the Red Army. The combination of engineering and artistic work seemed anything but contradictory in the era of Constructivism, and throughout his life Eisenstein likened the production of his films to the building of those bridges.

In 1920, at the end of the civil war, Eisenstein went to Moscow and joined the Proletkult Theater (short for Proletarian, or Workers’ Cultural Theater). There he designed and co-directed many plays. In 1921, Eisenstein (along with his friend, Sergei Yutkevich, another future Montage film director) enrolled in a theater workshop under the supervision of Meyerhold, whom he would always consider his mentor. In 1923, Eisenstein directed his first theatrical production, Enough Simplicity in Every Wise Man. Although the play was a nineteenthcentury farce, Eisenstein staged it as a circus. The actors dressed in clown costumes and performed in the acrobatic biomechanical style, walking on a tightrope above the audience or doing handstands as they spoke their lines.

Eisenstein also produced Dnevnik Glumova (Glumov’s Diary, 1923), a short film to be shown on a screen on the stage. At the same time that this play was performed, Eisenstein gained some early experience as a film editor: along with Esfir Shub (soon to become an important maker of compilation documentaries ), he reedited aGerman Expressionist film, Fritz Lang’s Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler, for Soviet release. Eisenstein always maintained that his move from the theater to film came in 1924, when he directed a production of playwright S.M. Tretyakov’s Gas Masks, not in a theater but in a real gas factory. According to Eisenstein, the contrast between the reality of the setting and the artifice of the drama was too great.

A few months later, he began work on Stachka (Strike, 1925) (released in early 1925) – a film set and shot in a factory. It was the first major film of the Montage movement, and Eisenstein went on to make three more important works in that style: Bronenosets Potyomkin (Battleship Potemkin),Oktyabr (October aka Ten Days That Shook the World in an abridged version), and Staroye i novoye (Old and New). Potemkin was extremely successful abroad, which gave Eisenstein and his colleagues considerable leeway for experimentation over the next few years. Many Montage films proved more popular abroad than in the USSR, where they were often accused of being too difficult for workers and peasants to understand.” [3]

“The oldest Montage director in years and experience was Lev Kuleshov, who had designed and directed films before the revolution and then taught at the State Film School. He was eighteen years old at the time of the Bolshevik uprising – the revolution was, in effect, his university (nearly all the major Soviet filmmakers were under twenty-five during the formative period of political upheaval) The year before, when he was seventeen, the young art student had landed a job as set designer with Evgeni Bauer. He also acted, completed directing a film after Bauer’s death, and directed one on his own. When the old film companies left Moscow, Kuleshov remained, casting his future with the revolution He worked on agit-trains and on agitkas, the films made for agit-train screenings. One of the founders of the Film School in Moscow, he formed the Kuleshov Workshop to work on cinematic theories and techniques.

In the workshop, Kuleshov developed his views on montage. He took the position that the material of cinema was the celluloid film strip pieces of film. Film art consisted of putting these pieces together to create, through montage and the spectator’s perception, a cinematic composition or idea. The legendary Kuleshov effect was an illustration of this principle.” [4] Kuleshov edited together a short film in which a shot of the expressionless face of Tsarist matinee idol Ivan Mosjoukine was alternated with various other shots (a plate of soup, a girl, a little girl’s coffin). The film was shown to an audience who believed that the expression on Mosjoukine’s face was different each time he appeared, depending on whether he was ‘looking at’ the plate of soup, the girl, or the coffin, showing an expression of hunger, desire or grief respectively.

Actually the footage of Mosjoukine was the same shot repeated over and over again. Vsevolod Pudovkin (who later claimed to have been the co-creator of the experiment) described in 1929 how: [the audience] raved about the acting… the heavy pensiveness of his mood over the forgotten soup, were touched and moved by the deep sorrow with which he looked on the dead child, and noted the lust with which he observed the woman. But we knew that in all three cases the face was exactly the same. The Kuleshov effect thus describes a phenomenon whereby shots acquire their meaning only in relation to other shots. Kuleshov’s own Soviet films were only mildly experimental in style, but his workshop produced two important Montage directors Vsevolod Pudovkin had intended to train as a chemist until he saw D.W. Griffith’s Intolerance in 1919. Convinced of the cinema’s importance, he soon joined Kuleshov’s workshop and trained as both an actor and a director.

His first feature film typified the Constructivist interest in the physical bases of psychological response; he made Mekhanika golovnogo mozga (Mechanics of the Brain), a documentary about Ivan Pavlov’s famous experiments on stimulus-response physiology. In 1926, Pudovkin (born in 1893) helped found the Montage movement with his first fiction feature, Mat (Mother). Within the USSR, Mother was the most popular of all Montage films. As a result, Pudovkin enjoyed the highest approval from the government of any of the movement’s directors, and he was able to keep up his experiments with Montage longer than any of the others – up until 1933. Another Kuleshov workshop member, Boris Barnet (born 1902) had studied painting and sculpture, and he trained as a boxer after the revolution. He acted in The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks and other mid-1920s films, and he also directed Dom na Trubnoy (The House on Trubnoya, 1928) and other Montage-style films.

The other important filmmaker who, along with Kuleshov, had started directing about the time of the revolution was Dziga Vertov (born 1896). During the mid-1910s, he wrote poetry and science fiction, composed what we now call musique concrete, and became influenced by the Cubo-Futurists.” [3] From 1916 to 1917, however, he studied medicine “until left medical school during the revolution to go into film work in Moscow He traveled on agit-trains and as a war correspondent, and put together newsreels and documentaries from available film footage. Where Kuleshov had gone from the agit-train experience through film school teaching to fiction filmmaking, and Eisenstein through theater to historical films, Vertov learned the creative importance of film editing and became a lifelong advocate of the documentary film.” [3] “In 1920, Vertov toured the south-western front on an agit-train which carried a print of his first, complete, edited film:October Revolution.

Whilst on the move, Vertov also shot new footage of events at the front, and, when he returned to Moscow, he edited this footage into a series of films which formed the basis of his Kinopravda (‘film truth’) newsreel series. The Kinopravda both addressed contemporary political issues, and continued the exploration of filmform which had arisen from the work of those involved with the agitka. This provided Vertov with the theoretical and practical foundation for the development of his first film manifesto: ‘Kinoki: Perevoret’ (Kinoks: A Revolution), which was published by Mayakovsky, Nikolai Aseyev and Osip Brik in Lefin 1923. However, Vertov’s manifesto, in which he went so far as to declaim that “what we have so far done in the cinema is 100 per cent mistaken”, displayed a degree of avant-gardism which was soon to bring him into conflict with the Soviet authorities. That conflict first emerged in a series of disagreements which took place between Vertov and officials within Goskino, the successor body to the Moscow Cinema Council, which had been established in 1922.

These problems eventually led Vertov to leave Moscow, and work with VUFKU, the pan-Ukrainian film production unit. Here, away from the constraints of the capital, he continued to experiment with his theory of the ‘kino-eye’, and eventually madeOdinnadtsatyy (The Eleventh Year, 1928), Chelovek s kino-apparatom (The Man with the Movie Camera, 1929) and Entuziazm: Simfoniya Donbassa (Enthusiasm, or Symphony of the Donbas, 1931). However, Vertov continued to experience difficulties with the Soviet authorities over the avantgarde nature of his films, and his career, from 1930, until his death in 1954, was beset by such problems.” [3] “The youngest Montage directors came out of the Leningrad theater milieu of the early 1920s. In 1921, while still in their teens, Grigori Kozintsev (born 1905), Leonid Trauberg (born 1902), and Sergei Yutkevich (born 1904) formed the Factory of the Eccentric Actor (FEKS).

This theatrical troupe enthusiastically embraced the circus, the popular American cinema, the cabaret, and other entertainments. They issued provocative manifestos in the manner of the Cubo-Futurists’ Slap in the Face of Public Taste (1912). In 1922, the FEKS group defined how their approach to acting departed from that of the traditional theater: “from emotion to the machine, from anguish to the trick. The technique-circus. The psychology-head over heels.” They staged theatrical events that adopted the techniques of popular entertainments, and by 1924, they moved into the cinema with a short parody of American serials,Pokhozhdeniya Oktyabriny (The Adventures of Oktyabrina, 1924 – now lost). Yutkevich went on to make Montage films on his own; Kozintsev and Trauberg codirected several important films of the movement. Because of their taste for bizarre experimentation, the FEKS group were criticized by government officials from the start of their careers.

Eisenstein, Kuleshov, Pudovkin, Vertov, and the FEKS group were the principal early exponents of Soviet Montage. Other directors picked up their influences and developed the style. In particular, filmmakers working in the non-Russian republics enriched the Montage movement. Foremost among these was Alexander Dovzhenko, the principal Ukrainian director. Dovzhenko had been in the Red Army during the civil war and served as a diplomatic administrator in Berlin in the early 1920s. There he studied art, returning to the Ukraine as a painter and cartoonist. In 1926, he suddenly switched to filmmaking and made a comedy and a spy thriller before directing his first Montage film, Zvenigora , in 1927. Based on obscure Ukrainian folk legends, Zvenigorabaffled audiences but demonstrated an original style that emphasizes lyrical imagery above narrative. Dovzhenko went on to make two more important Montage films, Arsenal and Zemlya (Earth), also set in the Ukraine.” [3] “None of the important filmmakers of the Montage style was a veteran of the pre-Revolutionary industry.

All came from other fields (for example, Eisenstein from engineering and Pudovkin from chemistry) and discovered the cinema in the midst of the Revolution’s ferment. The Czarist-era filmmakers who remained active in the USSR in the 1920s tended to stick to older traditions. One popular director of the Czarist period, Yakov Protazanov, went abroad briefly after the Revolution but returned to continue making films whose style and form owed almost nothing to the theory and practice of the new filmmakers.” “Protazanov’s return coincided with a general loosening of government restrictions on private enterprise. In 1921, the country was facing tremendous problems, including a widespread famine. In order to facilitate the production and distribution of goods, Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy (NEP), which for several years permitted private management of business.

For film, the NEP meant a sudden reappearance of film stock and equipment belonging to the producers who had not emigrated. Slowly, Soviet production began to grow as private firms made more films. The government attempted, with little success, to control the film industry by creating a central distribution company, Goskino, in 1922. “Of all the arts, for us the cinema is the most important,” Lenin stated in 1922. Since Lenin saw film as a powerful tool for education, the first films encouraged by the government were documentaries and newsreels such as Vertov’s newsreel series Kino-Pravda, which began in May 1922.

Fictional films were also being made from 1917 on, but it was not until 1923 that a Georgian feature, Tsiteli eshmakunebi (Red Imps), became the first Soviet film to compete successfully with the foreign films predominant on Soviet screens. (And not until 1927 did the Soviet industry’s income from its own films top that of the films it imported.) The Soviet Montage style displayed tentative beginnings in 1924, with Kuleshov’s class from the State Film School presenting Neobychainye priklyucheniya mistera Vesta v strane bolshevikov (The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks). This delightful film, along with Kuleshov’s next film, Luch smerti (The Death Ray, 1925), showed that Soviet directors could apply Montage principles and come up with amusing satires or exciting adventures as entertaining as the Hollywood product.

Eisenstein’s first feature, Stachka (Strike), was released early in 1925 and initiated the movement proper. His second, Bronenosets Potyomkin (The Battleship Potemkin), premiered later in 1925, was successful abroad and drew the attention of other countries to the new movement. In the next few years, Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Vertov, and the Ukrainian Alexander Dovzhenko created a series of films that are classics of the Montage style. In their writings and films, these directors championed the powers of editing. Until the late 1910s, most Russian fiction films had based their scenes around lengthy, fairly distant shots that captured the actors’ performances. Analytical editing was rare. But films from Hollywood and from the French Impressionist filmmakers told their stories through fast cutting, including frequent close framings.

Inspired by these imports, the young Soviet directors declared that a film’s power arose from the combination of shots. Montage seemed to be the way forward for modern cimema. Not all of the young theoreticians agreed on exactly what the Montage approach to editing should be. Pudovkin, for example, believed that shots were like bricks, to be joined together to build a sequence. Eisenstein disagreed, saying that the maximum effect would be gained if the shots did not fit together perfectly, if they created a jolt for the spectator. Many filmmakers in the montage movement followed this approach. Eisenstein also favored juxtaposing shots in order to create a concept. Vertov disagreed with both theorists, favoring a cinema-eye approach to recording and shaping documentary reality.

Pudovkin’s Potomok Chingis-Khana (Storm over Asia) makes use of conceptual editing similar to that of Eisenstein’s Oktyabr (October): shots of a military officer and his wife being dressed in their accessories are intercut with shots of the preparation at the temple. Pudovkin’s parallel montage points up the absurdity of both rituals. The Montagists’ approach to narrative form set them apart from the cinemas of other countries. Soviet narrative films tended to downplay character psychology as a cause; instead, social forces provided the major causes.

Characters were interesting for the way these social causes affected their lives. As a result, films of the Soviet Montage movement did not always have a single protagonist. Social groups could form a collective hero, as in several of Eisenstein’s films. In keeping with this downplaying of individual personalities, Soviet filmmakers often avoided well-known actors, preferring to cast parts by searching out nonactors. This practice was calledtypage since the filmmakers would often choose an individual whose appearance seemed at once to convey the type of character he or she was to play. Except for the hero, Pudovkin used non-actors to play all of the Mongols in Storm over Asia.” [1]

The Writings

“The mid-1920s saw a burgeoning in Soviet film theory, as critics and filmmakers sought to understand cinema scientifically. Like the French Impressionists, several Montage directors considered theory and filmmaking to be closely linked, and they wrote about their conceptions of cinema. They were united in an opposition to traditional films. All saw in Montage the basis of revolutionary films that would inspire audiences. But the writings of the Montage directors differed in important ways. In many respects, Kuleshov was the most conservative theorist of the group. He admired the succinct storytelling of American films, and he discussed Montage chiefly as techniques of editing for clarity and emotional effects.” [3] Kuleshov had initially embarked upon his experiments with montage in an attempt to develop editing techniques which would link shot to shot in such a way that coherent, large-scale narrative structures could be developed, which would have a predetermined effect upon the audience.

For example, in hisArt of the Cinema (1929), Kuleshov argued that, initially, he and his group were primarily concerned with discovering ‘how this material was organised, what the fundamental impression-making means of cinematography is.’ ” [2] We went to various motion picture theatres and began to observe which films produced the optimum effect on the viewer and how these films were made – in other words, by means of which films and which techniques of film-making the film was able to take hold of a viewer and therefore to bring to his awareness what we had conceived, what we had intended to show, and, thus, what we intended to do. This aspect of Kuleshov’s work also influenced the ‘linkage’ theory of montage developed by Pudovkin, whose two 1926 pamphlets on filmmaking were soon translated into western languages (in English as Film Language, 1929). Through Pudovkin, Montage came to refer generally to dynamic, often discontinuous, narrative editing.

“Vertov was far more radical. Vertov entered the Soviet film debates of the early 1920s with vigorous attacks on fiction film. With his brother Mikhail Kaufman (1897-1980) as cameraman and his wife, Elizaveta Svilova (1900-1976), as coeditor, Vertov formed the Cine-Eye group. They began producing a newsreel series called Kino-Pravda, named after the official Soviet newspaper, Pravda (the term meant Cine-Truth, and was revived decades later for the French documentary film movement of the 1960s, cinéma vérité) More than twenty Kino-Pravda episodes were released between 1922 and 1925. In his manifestos, Vertov called for an approach to montage that was at once scientific and poetic, whose core lay in the organization of movement into a “rhythmical artistic whole.” That job belonged to the film editor, who shapes the movement of the overall work by determining the “intervals,” Vertov’s term for the transitions from one image to another.

Vertov’s sharp polemical pen earned him opponents as well as supporters. He was criticized from many directions: for depriving images of their status as documents; for using ineffective images that needed more design and composition; for overemphasizing inter titles; for attempting to monopolize the documentary field. One who voiced this last critique was Esfir Shub (1894-1959), whose career as a film editor and documentary filmmaker has been largely eclipsed by Vertov’s fame as a lone Soviet avatar of nonfiction film. In an era before archives and museums preserved film materials, Shub hunted down discarded footage and put together historical documentaries. In her first compilation film, Padenie dinastii Romanovykh (The Fall of the Romanov Dynasty, 1927), she crafted from what often appeared accidental or innocuous images a compelling narrative of events leading up to the abdication of the Russian monarch in February 1917.

This was followed by several similar works on Russian history and Soviet life.” [4] “Eisenstein developed the most complicated conception of Montage. Initially he believed in what he called the “montage of attractions” (as he boldly declared in the poster for his first stage production). As in a circus, the filmmaker should assemble a series of exciting moments to stimulate the viewer’s emotions. Later he formulated elaborate principles by which individual filmic elements could be combined for maximum emotional and intellectual effects.

He insisted that Montage was not limited to editing or even to Constructivist art in general. In a bold essay of 1920, he scoffed at Kuleshov and Pudovkin as treating shots like bricks that are joined to build a film. Bricks, he pointed out, do not interact with each other as film shots do. He asserted that shots should not be seen as simply linked but rather as conflicting sharply with one another. Even Eisenstein’s writing style, with its short sentences and paragraphs, tried to convey the principle of collision: The shot is by no means an element of montage.

The shot is a montage cell.

Just as cells in their division form a phenomenon of another order, the organism or embryo, so on the other side of the dialectical leap from the shot, there is montage. By what, then, is montage characterized and, consequently, its cell – the shot? By collision. By the conflict of two pieces in opposition to each other. By conflict. By collision. For Eisenstein, this conflict imitated the Marxist concept of the dialectic, in which antithetical elements clash and produce a synthesis that goes beyond both. Montage could compel the spectator to sense the conflict between elements and create a new concept in his or her mind. In “collision Montage,” Eisenstein foresaw the possibility of an “intellectual” cinema.

It would attempt not to tell a story but to convey abstract ideas, as an essay or political tract might. He dreamed of filming Karl Marx’s Capital, creating concepts through images and editing rather than through verbal language. Certain of his films took first steps toward intellectual filmmaking. The filmmakers’ theories did not always accord with their practice. Kuleshov and Pudovkin in particular proved more daring as filmmakers than their essays might suggest. All the core Montage directors, however, wrote about film technique as a vivid way to shape the new Soviet society by arousing and educating their audiences.” [3]

The End

“By the end of the 1920s, each of the major directors of this movement had made about four important films. The decline of the movement was not caused primarily by industrial and economic factors as in Germany and France. Instead, the government strongly discouraged the use of the Montage style. By the late 1920s, Vertov, Eisenstein, and Dovzhenko were being criticized for their excessively formal and esoteric approaches. In 1929, Eisenstein went to Hollywood to study the new technique of sound; by the time he returned in 1932, the attitude of the film industry had changed. While he was away, a few filmmakers carried their Montage experiments into sound cinema in the early 1930s. But the Soviet authorities, under Stalin’s direction, encouraged filmmakers to create simple films that would be readily understandable to all audiences. Stylistic experimentation or nonrealistic subject matter was often criticized or censored.

This trend culminated in 1934, when the government instituted a new artistic policy called Socialist Realism. This policy dictated that all artworks must depict revolutionary development while being firmly grounded in realism. The great Soviet directors continued to make films, occasionally masterpieces, but the Montage experiments of the 1920s had to be discarded or modified. Eisenstein managed to continue his work on Montage but occasionally incurred the wrath of the authorities up until his death in 1948. As a movement, the Soviet Montage style can be said to have ended by 1933, with the release of such films as Vertov’s Entuziazm: Simfoniya Donbassa (Enthusiasm, 1931) and Pudovkin’s Dezertir (Deserter, 1933).” [1]

During the Montage movement’s existence, perhaps fewer than thirty films were made in the style. Nevertheless, as in France and Germany, these avant-garde films were prestigious and influential. Leftist filmmakers in other countries, especially documentarists like Scottish-born John Grierson and Dutch Joris Ivens, adopted heroic, low-angle framings and dynamic cutting for similar propaganda purposes. Pudovkin’s and Eisenstein’s theoretical writings have been read by critics and filmmakers ever since they were translated. Few filmmakers have used the full range of radical Montage devices, but in amodified fashion, the movement has had a broad influence.”

You may also be interested in the following: every country has unique characteristics essay

Film Analysis of The Lady Eve Essay

The Lady Eve is a film, which tells the love tale of unlikely couple who meet each other in one of their trip on a Luxury Liner. The movie was released way back 1941 in the United States, directed by a multi-talented Director “Preston Sturges” and was written by a great dramatist “Monckton Hoffe”. In general, the lady eve is a romantic comedy film, filled with different twists and turns, on which gives a picture of an extra ordinary love story of two individuals living in a totally different world.

With the depicted differences in the storyline, the plot of the movie is definitely interesting and exciting.

(Star Pulse) Although, the movie Lady Eve, by Preston Sturges, did not achieve major success to garner movie awards and honorable recognition in film festival, apart from the nomination for Academy Awards – Best Writing and Original Story. The film still receives a bunch of positive feedback from credible movie critic in different generation, on which the director, artists and the rest of the people responsible for the movie had received positive recognition from the viewers of almost every generation for the film “The Lady Eve”.

(Star Pulse)

In the year 1994, the movie Lady Eve was acknowledged as socially, aesthetically and historically significant by the “United States National Film Registry”, on which the movie was selected for preservation by the “Library of Congress” for its social and moral importance. Nevertheless, the Lady Eve film was a wonderful work of art, that gives a fair picture of romance and comedy love tale, which mirrors a true to life situation of love and journey. (Star Pulse) Talented actors and actresses, on the other hand, had been pivotal on the outcome of the movie.

The cast of the movie is set with bunch of – talented, effective, actors and actresses. Reputable actress, “Barbara Stanwyck” had played the lead role as Jean Harrington and a multi-talented film and stage actor “Henry Fonda” portrayed the leading man role as Charles Pike. In the movie, Barbara Stanwyck and and Charles Pike had played great music, on which they complement each other with their role and make the movie more appealing and exciting to watch. Nonetheless, the movie Lady Eve is one of the most humorous film way back the World War II era, on which a survivor of ever changing taste of the movie critics and audiences.

(Star Pulse) Moreover, the Lady Eve is a thematic romance and comedy film. It tells the tale of two strangers with different outlook in life, bind together of their fate when they meet at a Luxury Shipping Line in one of their travels. Jean Harrington is a con artist who lives with her father “Colonel Harrington”, on which she falls in love with a guy she met on her travel. Charles Pike, on the other hand, is a rich and decent man – a philologist, who stayed in Amazon for a long period of time for his study on snakes.

The movie takes place in a ship, when Jean Harrington is on a travel with her father heading back to New York, sharing the same luxury ship with the unsophisticated guy Charles Pike, who is on his travel back to the United States after his long stay in Amazon for his studies. In the ship’s dinning, Jean Harrington had saw Charles who is at that time reading a book, entitled “Are Snakes Necessary”. This scene is really funny, as Jean showed up her attraction to Charles Pike, when she trips Charles on purpose to drive his attention.

This scene had been the start of the romance and comedy, on which Jean and Charles had fall to each other. In the story, snakes had been the sexual symbol that is the start of romance scenes between the two lead characters. Truthfully in love as they are, Jean and Charles, had several misunderstanding and broke up with each other. The movie is filled with romance and comedy scenes where it depicts the journey of Jean and Charles as a lover that later on succeeds in pursuit of their love. Nonetheless, this movie is totally a thematic romance and comedy film that tells the difficulties and happiness of an extra ordinary love story.

In the end, Jean Harrington and Charles Pike had survived the challenges of love, despite the many differences that threatens their relationship, they managed to surpass and live with each other in-love. After all, the movie has a great opening and ended as one of the superb romantic comedy love tale, the movie industry had. It can be argued that comedy is the true theme of the movie Lady Eve. The movie is amazingly funny, on which almost every scenes is a depiction of comedy acts that is definitely satisfying – it brings me to laughter.

No doubt, the Lady Eve is a product of humorous mind that depicts funniest twists and turns in its story. Definitely, most of the scenes in the movie contribute to address properly the theme of the movie. One of those scenes is the opening scenario, on which Jean trips Charles on purpose when she broke her heel to attract the attention of Charles. It possibly funny, due to the fact that Barbara Stanwyck, had turned to be an effective comedy actress in her role in the movie. Another one is the scenes where snake serve as the sexual metaphor.

It is many to mention specifically what scene, however, parts in the movie definitely contributes to address the true theme of the movie. The elements of the movie, on the other hand; which are divided into five, are effectively connected with each other to complete the theme. The narrative of the movie is chronological, on which the setting and plot of the film is according to the present time when it was produced. The movie depicts, the same era of the forties and is produced according on the order of time, during the 1940’s in the United States.

Artist’s performance on the other hand showcases a superb portrayal of a role that is realistic and effectively funny. Major actors and actresses, mostly Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda had been real with their portrayal of their role, on which they have been effective to be funny mostly in critical scenes in the movie. Nonetheless, the casts of the movie acts accordingly with the progress of the movie. Also, cinematography plays a pivotal role in the whole essence of the movie. It is the defining factor of certain scene, on which proper lighting and appropriate camera angle adds more emotion on the scene.

In the movie Lady Eve, the cinematography is amazingly brilliant that supported the emotional aura of every scene in the film. One of my personal choices of cinematography in the movie is the scenes which involves Charles and his snakes. The camera angles are perfect – I admire the detailed angle of the snakes, and the lighting definitely sets the mood of that specific scene. With the aspect of editing, the editors had their job well done, as they apply appropriate transition of every scene that depicts on the movie.

Each scene is well expressive, with the help of correct transition of every camera shots, from one angle to another. Nevertheless, the editing of the movie was wonderful, I admire the way the editors used “fade in, fade out” technique for the appropriate transition of each scene, which particularly interesting of the whole editing of the movie. In the art direction and design are perfect, as the directors and the rest of the crew had used proper – locations, effects, props, costumes and make up in the movie.

The locations of every scene are perfect, which make every scenario organized with the actual time. Effects, props and costumes, on the other hand, are effective to make the scenes realistic and effective to imply proper emotions. All the funny and comedy scenes in the movie, however, are the definition of the style and strategy of the director, on which these scenes are definitely filled with humorous mind of director Preston Sturges. I personally like this movie, because of two main reasons.

First is “humor”, I personally like the film on its humorous scripts which every funny scene are depictions of superb humor that brings me to laughter. Secondly, I personally like the movie because of its profound portrayal of comedy, on which every scene is a depiction of humor that at any moment funny thoughts will pop out in the script. After all, the movie Lady Eve is film filled with clear scripts and funniest scenes, which is definitely one of the finest movie in forties. Works Cited Star Pulse (2008),The Lady Eve Review: Retrieved May 8, 2008 from http://www. starpulse. com/movie/The_Lady_Eve/V28051/0/5/

Film Review: Sleepless In Seattle Essay

When Hollywood makes a movie about a spouse who has lost a significant other, the story usually evolves around the wife. How she deals with the loss, the grief, her support group and how she manages to get her life back on track for the sake of her children and herself. But Sleepless In Seattle is a totally different kind of widower movie.

The movie released in 1993 was helmed by Nora Ephron from a story by Jeff Arch, the movie casts a pre Oscar winner Tom Hanks as the widower Sam Baldwin who is learning to cope with the loss of his wife, raising his son Jonah ( as portrayed by Ross Malinger) alone and helping the child to adjust to life without his mother, as well as trying to get his own personal life back on track.

The movie is based upon the old plot of a grieving widow who needs to get on with life. Its plotline centers on the little known truth that men also grieve when their spouse is taken away from him by illness and death.

Tom Hanks is highly effective as the spouse who is so deeply affected by his wife’s death that he practically places his life on hold except for the basic things that he needs to do such as raise his son and earn a living. Although his friends and family rallied to his side upon the death of his wife either by attending the funeral, being more active and present in his and his child’s life, even going as far as to refer him to support groups and psychiatrists in order to help him deal with his loss, Sam still feels alone and keeps his grief to himself.

For him, the best solution seemed to be to move to another place and try to start life anew. He chooses to be alone with his memories of his wife and deal with his grief privately and alone, but his son has other ideas. Little Jonah has decided that his dad has grieved enough (it has been a year since his mother died) and his dad needs serious help. So one night, the boy sneaks a phone call to a radio psychologist and relates the personal turmoil of his father.

The doctor then asks to speak to his father in order to help him and advise him about how to let go of the memory of his wife and move on with life. The doctor gives him the handle Sleepless in Seattle while advising him to move on with his life because his son now believes that he needs a wife to care for them. The movie dealt with the reality that the death of a spouse is not easy for the widowed husband or wife. The remaining spouse has to accept the reality that the life he once had with his wife, that which made him feel happy and complete has come to an abrupt end.

In her personal blog, a woman who simply goes by the name Sara indicated that men deal with the loss of the wife in a different manner because widows “tend to lose their social networks since their wives the family ‘kinkeepers. ’ According to the article Good Grief: Bouncing Back From a Spouse’s Death in Late Life, Deborah Carr indicates that certain personal and social factors should be considered when helping the widower move on with his life.

1 Sara makes references to this article in her blog wherein she argues that (as cited in Carr, 2007 ) “the age of the husband and wife, how the spouse died, and what the couple’s life was like prior to the death are the most important factors that influence spousal bereavement. ” In the movie, Sam embodies this personal turmoil by refusing to go on with his life and continuing to mourn her death one year later. Instead of accepting the death of his wife and moving on, he wallows on the what if’s of their married life. Socially husbands tend to grieve for a longer period of time because of the way his wife becomes the crutch of his life.

He does not know how to move on without his wife because of his emotional need to hold on to the past memories of his wife. Sam Baldwin solidly illustrates how a man is lost without his wife. Without her, he lost his desire to dream and achieve more in life because his muse has passed on. He chooses to just live day to day with the hope that eventually, he will stop hurting emotionally. In reality, a man who loses his wife has a tendency to lose his place in the social circles because it was the duty of the wife to set the family social calendar.

Sam Baldwin also showed us the difficulty of having to raise a child in a single parent environment where the grieving and closure process has not been completed. Widowed men also have to deal with the reality that he is now in charge of the household and has to portray the role of mother, wife, father, and financial provider all at the same time. Although considered to be a lightweight romantic comedy, Sleepless in Seattle gives us a realistic look into the life of a grieving husband. The situations portrayed in the movie do happen to male widows in real life.

Due to the loss of the wife, the husband can experience a rollercoaster of emotions. . 2 According to the website planet-therapy. com, in its section regarding Grief: Living with the death of a partner, a grieving widow experiences a gamut of emotions ranging from “feelings of sadness, despair, emptiness, anger and guilt, restlessness and sleep problems, and a sense of inadequacy and concerns about health and well-being. ” In the movie, as Sam Baldwin speaks to the psychologist over the radio, he shares the same list of his grieving experiences with the listeners.

Today’s modern society tends to be more helpful of a spouse who has lost his or her partner through death rather than divorce. Mainly because it is harder for a spouse to get over the death of a spouse rather than what is usually a nasty divorce proceeding. The grieving widow needs more reassurance in life because, if a spouse is lost due to illness, such as the case with Sam Baldwin, his life will effectively be placed on hold until the death of the spouse which will then leave the husband or wife as a socially disconnected entity who will need to rebuild the personality he once had.

Society accepts that it is easier for a divorcee to move on with life. Therefore there is no real need to be an emotional crutch to this person because he or she will want to celebrate the newly gained freedom. In the case of a widower, the death of the spouse usually becomes a traumatic experience wherein the living spouse become uncertain about how to socialize with people and get on with his life. Sometimes, the widow even goes so far as to consider himself or herself a jinx and vows never to remarry.

Between the two, the widows need more reassurance and push towards reclaiming the life he once had or could have once the grief is conquered. This is why in the movie, Sam’s friends rally to his side and help him deal with his reentrance into the social circle. From dating advise, to sexual advice, this is the support group that helped Sam realize that he can let go of his wife’s memory without dishonoring the same.

In reality, a widow tends to continue to speak with the deceased spouse long after death and fiercely holds on to the memory of the deceased even to the point of continuing with their old traditions even if he or she must do it alone. But in the case of Sam, he voluntarily reactivates his social life in an effort to get over his grief and possibly find a mother for his son who needs female guidance as well. In the movie, Sam chooses to eventually go on with his life after the radio consultation causes an influx of postal mail from various single women across the land pour into his home.

This is where the story reaches its complicated plot line. Sam does not show any interest in the mail he receives because he is the kind of man who believes in the old fashioned dating game. He has a few bad dates before finally settling on one woman whom he considers a potential candidate for the role of wife and mother in his family. The problem is that Jonah believes more in fate and makes his choice on the basis of a letter from Annie Reed. A hopeless romantic whose favorite movie is A Love Affair.

Incidentally, A Love Affair plays a pivotal part in the movie as it is used as the reference for the final, climactic scene at the Empire State Building. Although the movie is well crafted and has a good script, I am deeply disturbed with the way the characters of Jonah Baldwin and his friend Jessica were portrayed. With a maturity beyond their ages, and an unbelievably good grasp of adult issues, it is quite disconcerting to watch these two kids work their way around adults to the point of using emotional blackmail to get the parent to do as the child wants.

I am willing to accept that Sam and Annie were meant to be together. But the way they got together is one that would drive a parent to the brink of worry and insanity while totally rejecting any positive outcomes such a scenario may present to all the parties concerned. Had this movie really been based on reality, I sincerely doubt that Sam would have dropped everything and hopped on a plane for New York to find the errant child.

In reality, the parent would be on the telephone with the police trying to coordinate a cross country search since nobody is really sure as to where the child would end up in a city as huge as New York and how. The fact that the child was not punished but instead cuddled in the end by the worried father delivers a bad message as far as I am concerned. To me, it says “Hey, dad does not want to do what I want. I will run away from home. “ We all know how that scenario would have really ended n reality and therefore should have not have been included in the movie.

The movie can be considered a chick flick because it caters to the romantic notions held dearly by women while the men are considered clueless most of the time. When not being regarded as the unbelievably gullible opposite sex. The movie asks us to suspend disbelief for over an hour as we wait to discover if these two people will finally meet and how will that meeting end? The references to the primitive internet of the time was a wonderful throwback to an era when America was still discovering what things could be done online.

Basically a well executed movie, Sleepless in Seattle is a movie made for those who believe that fate and karma will bring love your way even if you have lost hope. I do find it hard to believe though, that two people who do not meet until the very end of the movie and shared no more than a minute glance at each other in the middle of the movie will have an ever after ending. Footnotes 1 See Sara’s blog section number 13entitled Relating to Family Transitions (2007) for the full content of the article Good Grief:

Bouncing Back From A Spouse’s Death in Late Life by Deborah Carr 2 See planet-therapy. com (2007) specially the sections relating to grief and loss, death of a partner, solutions for people who lose a partner, and possibilities for change after the death of a partner. Work Cited Foster Gary (Producer). Ephron, Nora (Director). (1993). Sleepless in Seattle [Motion Picture]. United States: TriStar Pictures. Planet Therapy. (n. d. ). Grief and Loss. Retrieved 21 August 2007 from http://planet-therapy. com/pub/gen_problems/grief/grief-2. html. Sara. (2007, April 26). Family Transitions [Blog 13]. Message posted to http://quicksa. blogspot. com/

Film Analysis: “Elizabeth: the Golden Age” Essay

Queen Elizabeth I was one of the most memorable, most discussed and most written about monarch not only in England, but in Western history (Dobson and Watson 2; Rozett 103). She was the only monarch that historians attributed an entire era of English history after. The film “Elizabeth: the Golden Age” is an example of the Queen’s popularity in literature.

Although much of the film had accurately depicted the life of the Queen as to the reason why the Elizabethan period of England was synonymous to the period of peace and prosperity, there were a number of discrepancies between the information shown in the film against data retrieved from historical records.

This paper would be presenting these discrepancies as well as an insight on Queen Elizabeth I’s view towards marriage and psychological profile. The film “Elizabeth: the Golden Age” was set in the year 1565, when Spain was considered as the most powerful Empire in Western history and was under the rule of King Philip II.

In order to achieve his goal to spread the Catholic faith across Europe, Philip II began what he considered as a holy war. This war had allowed him to conquer all the European countries, except for England which was still under the rule of a Protestant Queen, Elizabeth I. Although not directly stated, the film implied that it was in the year 1585 that Philip II decided it was time to purify England from the clutches of the devil ruled by a whore (“Elizabeth: the Golden Age”). The film depicted King Philip II clearly as someone who extremely despised Queen Elizabeth I in her entirety.

However, Campion and Holleran stated that when Queen Elizabeth I ascended the throne in 1558, King Philip II in fact proposed marriage to the Queen. Although she politely declined is marriage proposal, she accepted the advice and protection that King Philip II offered to her (2). Meanwhile, in a meeting with her political advisers, Queen Elizabeth I was warned that her country was now divided by religion. Half of the country was now practicing the Catholic faith with the other half practicing the Protestant faith.

They recommended to the Queen that measures must be taken against the English Catholics. This was because her advisers saw the English followers of the Catholic faith as a threat to Elizabeth I’s reign because of two reasons. The first was that since they were practicing the Catholic, this meant that they had allied themselves with both the Pope and the kingdom of Spain, who has been considered in the film as England’s greatest enemy. The second was that the Catholics no longer recognized Elizabeth I as their ruler.

Rather, their loyalty had shifted to Mary Stuart, the Queen’s cousin and whom they regarded as the rightful Queen-in-waiting. Queen Elizabeth I responded to her advisers that she would not punish her people because of their religious beliefs and assured them that she had been told that the people still revered her as their Queen (“Elizabeth: the Golden Age”). The division in England, brought about by religious beliefs, had been a problem that did not occur during Queen Elizabeth I’s reign.

Instead, this division was an issue that the Queen inherited from her predecessors, Mary Tudor and her father, Henry VIII. According to historical records, Henry VIII rejected the papal authority in 1534 and assumed the title of Supreme Head of the National Church. With the ascension of Mary Tudor to the throne in 1553, she sought to reconcile the English Church with the Church of Rome. Initially, Elizabeth I was considered to be moderate when it came to religious affairs since she was more concerned in keeping her throne, maintaining the peace and the promotion of the prosperity of England.

Furthermore, Elizabeth I herself accepted three different religions during her lifetime: Anglo-Catholic, Catholic, and Protestant. This was why she did not see the English Catholics as a threat and refrained herself from imposing severe punishments. She did, however, encouraged religious uniformity by setting an example. She had also pressured her subjects to abandon their resistance to the established Church of England (Campion and Holleran 11-14; Cole 2; Taylor-Smither 63).

Sir Francis Walsingham revealed to Queen Elizabeth I in the film that an assassination plot called the “Enterprise of England” was discovered masterminded by the Spanish monarchy. The plot included two armies were situated along the coasts of Sussex and Norfolk. They were waiting for the order to assist Mary Stuart to assassinate Elizabeth I and to put Mary Stuart on the throne of England. When she learned about the assassination attempt, Queen Elizabeth I confronted the ambassadors of Philip II to England.

This caused the ambassadors to end their office in disgrace and to view her as the center of an international Protestant conspiracy inciting a rebellion both in the Netherlands and in France (Doran “Elizabeth I and Foreign Policy, 1558-1603” 8; “Elizabeth: the Golden Age”). Upon the discovery of the assassination plot, Mary Stuart had given the order to execute the assassination plot on the Queen. While she was in church, one of the supporters of the Enterprise of England managed to get through the guards at the front of the church and tried to kill the Queen with the use of a pistol.

However, the pistol used was unarmed, and the Queen survived the assassination attempt. The assassin and the other members of the Enterprise of England were captured, imprisoned and tortured. Later, Sir Walsingham then confronted Mary Stuart with regards to the assassination attempt on the Queen and her involvement to the plot. She was then presented the orders she had given out to the members of the Enterprise of England to proceed with the assassination of the Queen. Mary Stuart was tried for treason and was executed by beheading. It was only after the execution of Mary Stuart that Sir Walsingham realized the true intention of Spain.

Through the execution of Mary Stuart who was both a Catholic and an ally of Spain, England provided Philip II a reason to wage war against England (“Elizabeth: the Golden Age”). Although this served as the climax of the entire film, it also contained the most of the discrepancies on historical documents and records except for Mary Stuart’s involvement in the assassination attempt on the life of Queen Elizabeth I. This did not come as a surprise since there have been numerous documents and literary works where the events of the life of Queen Elizabeth I were re-arranged.

An example of this was the biography made by Sir Walter Scott entitled Kenilworth where he changed the events so that Amy Robsart, the first wife of Robert Dudley which occurred in 1560 would coincide with the entertainment spectacle at Kenilworth which occurred in 1575 (Rozett 104). Mary Stuart, who was also known in history as Mary, Queen of Scots, became the Queen of Scotland after her birth in 1542. She married the Dauphin of France and became the Queen of France when he ascended the throne in 1559. Her reign as Queen of France was only short-lived, since her husband died a year later his ascent to the throne.

She then returned to Scotland to assume her place as the Queen of Scots upon the death of her mother. Her succeeding marriages were met with such scandal. Of these marriages, the most scandalous was her marriage to the Earl of Bothwell, who had been considered as the alleged murderer of her second husband. Her marriage to the Earl of Bothwell resulted to a national uprising where she was defeated in 1567. She was then forced to sign a document on the threat of death to abdicate her throne and title of the Queen of Scotland.

She tried to regain her title by raising another army which was also defeated. She then sought protection on her life in England and her cousin, Elizabeth I. Outraged by the actions done by the Scottish lords against her cousin, Elizabeth I protected her cousin and detained her as a prisoner (Campion and Holleran 2-3; Perry 145-46). Since the death of Mary Tudor and Elizabeth I’s ascension to the English throne, Mary Stuart had expressed publicly her legitimate claim to the English throne since her mother was the eldest sister of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I’s father.

Even though she was a prisoner in England, she remained to be a threat to Elizabeth I. When reports were brought to Queen Elizabeth I’s attention that her cousin was involved in assassination plots against her, Parliament moved for Mary Stuart’s execution. Initially, Elizabeth I did not consider this option since there was no evidence that proved the allegations against Mary Stuart. That all changed upon when Sir Francis Walsingham discovered the assassination plot against the Queen called the Babington plot.

To gather evidence regarding the involvement of Mary Stuart on the plot, he ordered Mary Stuart to be moved to a house where she could be more closely monitored and appointed a new jailer who was less sympathetic to Mary Stuart. Soon, Mary Stuart began to receive news from Europe which were smuggled to her through waterproof packages inserted in the bungholes of beer kegs. Unknown to Mary Stuart, Sir Walsingham had already intercepted these messages and had managed to decode them before Mary Stuart and her confidantes received them.

It was here that Sir Walsingham discovered that the plotters of the assassination of the Queen were headed by a rich and idealistic Catholic squire named Anthony Babington and that there were sixty thousand Spanish and English soldiers ready to rescue Mary upon receiving her approval. She approved the assassination and her rescue in writing. Sir Walsingham presented to Elizabeth I the directions and approval written by Mary Stuart in her own handwriting as evidence and proof of the allegations made against Mary Stuart.

After protecting Mary Stuart for nineteen years, Elizabeth I was compelled by law to transfer Mary to Fortheringhay Castle where she was tried and was found guilty on the crime of treason. She was executed by beheading in 1587. The betrayal brought by Mary Stuart to attempt to assassinate her, Elizabeth I’s outlook towards Catholics began to change and saw them as traitors and a threat to her life. This resulted in her implementing sterner laws against Catholics were enforced with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, torture and death (Campion and Holleran 11-14; Taylor-Smither 63; Thomas 147-48).

King Philip II launched his Spanish Armada against England a year after the execution of Mary Stuart. This decision was not influenced by the execution of Mary Stuart. Rather, it was a result of the declining relationship between the two countries. Between the years of 1565 and 1566, many members of the Spanish nobles had demanded Philip II to forego the Spanish Inquisition because they viewed his measures against Protestantism as an attempt to extend Spanish control over the ecclesiastical affairs as a drive to undermine traditional privileges of Spain.

This Inquisition was temporarily placed on hold due to the constant threats of the Turks to Spain. The moment the Turks signed a series of treaties with Spain, it gave King Philip II the opportunity to once again pursue his goal to expand Spanish rule over Europe (Doran “Elizabeth I and Foreign Policy, 1558-1603” 6-10). The relationship between Spain and England had begun to deteriorate as a result of a number of events that had occurred between King Philip II’s courtship to Queen Elizabeth I and the war between Spain and England.

Among these events were the voyages of Francis Drake around the world which were secretly supported by Elizabeth I. On top of the products from the New World, Drake also looted the Spanish galleons he came across of which the Queen accepted a portion of when he returned from his journeys in 1580 (Doran “Elizabeth I and Foreign Policy, 1558-1603” 9). The Spanish Armada greatly outnumbered the English army because the population of England was significantly lower than that of Spain which resulted in fewer able men to be enlisted in the army.

Also, the military technology of the English army was far behind than any other European countries and it was impossible for Queen Elizabeth I to maintain an army financially because during the four decades of her reign, most of the financial resources were allotted to the maintenance of the blend of politics, socializing and ceremonies that the Queen accomplished through travels around the kingdom (Cole 1; Doran “Elizabeth I and Foreign Policy, 1558-1603” 7; Frye 100; Thomas 160). As the Spanish Armada drew near, Elizabeth I gathered her small army and encouraged them with a short oration which is now known as the “Oration at Tilbury Camp.

” This short speech was considered by most writers and historians accepted as one of the best speeches composed by a monarch in England’s history. The most striking line in the speech which was mentioned in the film, although reworded, was “I […] come to lay down for my god, and for my [kingdom], and for my people, [my] honor and my blood in the dust […] I know I have the body […] of a weak and [feeble] woman, [but] I have the [heart] and [stomach] of a [king], and a [king] of England too […]” (“Elizabeth: the Golden Age”; Frye 98; Green 424-26).

Perhaps what made Queen Elizabeth I such an enigma for many historians and writers was her decision to remain unmarried, which is why she has been referred to in history as “the Virgin Queen. ” Her decision to remain unmarried stretched down to her ladies-in-waiting and her courtiers such that, in order for them to be married, they must first seek the approval of the Queen. Those who married in secret would have to face the fury of the Queen and might even have to face imprisonment.

Such was the case in the movie when she lashed out against Bess, her favorite lady-in-waiting and Walter Raleigh when she discovered they had not only married without her consent, but were expecting a child. Although there are no documentation discovered regarding the encounter between Queen Elizabeth I, Walter Raleigh and Bess, there are numerous accounts on the outbursts of anger the Queen exemplified upon the discovery of the secret marriages of the members of her court. The most documented was the incident between Queen Elizabeth I and one of her ladies-in-waiting named Mary Shelton.

When Elizabeth I discovered Mary Shelton’s marriage to James Scudamore, she exploded and demanded why Mary Shelton or James Scudamore did not seek her approval before they got married. One eyewitness stated that Mary Shelton was hit profusely by the angered Queen and was attacked by the Queen with a candlestick which caused Mary Shelton’s finger to be broken (Doran “Monarchy and Matrimony” 5-6; “Elizabeth: the Golden Age”; Hammer 80-81). Historical records provided two reasons on why Queen Elizabeth I decided to remain unmarried throughout her reign.

One is that it was her own decision in order to be able to concentrate all her attention to the affairs of the kingdom. This was evident in the speech that she had made at Parliament in 1559 when the members of Parliament presented her a petition to marry. She responded to this petition by stating that she was already married to her husband, the Kingdom of England. This being the case, she did not see any reason why she should still marry a man. Another reason historical records presented in connection to her choosing to remaining unmarried were her cousin, Mary Stuart and the circumstances surrounding her cousin’s marriage.

As mentioned earlier, Mary Stuart’s marriage to her third husband led to a civil uprising in Scotland. After being defeated in the civil uprising, the Scottish lords forced Mary Stuart to abdicate the throne of Scotland and her title as Queen of Scotland. Queen Elizabeth I saw her cousin’s marriage as the primary cause of her cousin’s downfall and feared that should she marry, the same events might happen to her (Doran “Monarchy and Matrimony” 2; King 30-33; Taylor-Smither 61).

Psychologists have also presented studies to explain Queen Elizabeth I’s decision to remain unmarried. Based on their findings, psychologists concluded that Queen Elizabeth I was a damaged human being, based on Sigmund Freud’s theory of personality. This damage occurred during her childhood when she witnessed not only her father, King Henry VIII, accusing her mother, Anne Boylen, of the crime of adultery, but also she witnessed her mother’s execution by beheading after she was tried and found guilty of the crime.

This childhood memory affected Queen Elizabeth I’s personality such that she began to embody the traits of males. It also caused her to identify with males in terms of being dominant and exemplifying traits of fearlessness and being aggressive. Because of these personality traits that Queen Elizabeth I adopted and portrayed, it would make it impossible for her to become a wife and a mother because the personality traits that a wife and a mother during this period included being submissive to her husband and to the needs of her children.

Psychologists have also noted her uncontrollable and sudden bursts of rage and mood swings. An example of this was seen in the film when she found out that her favorite lady-in-waiting, Bess, not only married Walter Raleigh, but also is expecting a child. This was also evident in historical records when she attacked her lady-in-waiting named Mary Shelton and James Scumadore upon learning that they married without first seeking her approval for their union. These events led modern-day psychologists to conclude that Queen Elizabeth I was suffering from clinical hysteria.

This hysteria was brought about by the unconscious anxieties that she was experiencing as a result of her witnessing her mother’s trial and execution as well as by feelings of jealousy. This jealously was exemplified in the film when Queen Elizabeth I confided to Bess that she was envious of Bess because although she was a Queen, there were many things that her lady-in-waiting may enjoy which she, as a Queen, can never experience (Doran “Monarchy and Matrimony” 5-6; “Elizabeth: the Golden Age”; Hammer 81).

In general, the depiction of the life of Queen Elizabeth I in the film “Elizabeth: the Golden Age” was acceptable, if not accurate. It showed the two sides of the Queen. On one hand, she was a fearless leader devoted to her country and her duties as Queen that she would rather sacrifice personal joys such as being married in order to concentrate on her obligations to her kingdom. She also proved that, in period where women are considered as inferior to men, a woman did not need a man by her side in order to rule a country.

Her experiences during her childhood allowed her to develop important characteristics that a leader during this period must possess – dominance, ruthlessness, aggression and fearlessness. On the other hand, the film also depicted the Queen as an emotionally weak human being. The same childhood experiences that helped her develop her admirable qualities also caused her to become clinically hysterical based on the findings of modern-day psychologists.

Her condition caused her to exemplify sudden emotional outbursts of rage which affected the lives of those who served her court with her outbursts at times causing harm to those who have remained loyal to her. However, the re-arrangement done in the film with regards on the timeline and reasons for events to occur may have provided confusing information for the viewers of the film since these events have been re-arranged just as Sir Walter Scott had done centuries before in order to correlate the events presented in the film to each other even if historical records showed otherwise.

It can only be assumed that the re-arrangement and changes on the relationship of the events that occurred during the timeline presented in the film may have been done in order for the film to become more exciting to view and to highlight more on the positive qualities of the Queen which made her the most popular monarch of Western history. Works Cited Campion, Edmund and James V. Holleran. A Jesuit Challenge: Edmund Campion’s Debates at the Tower of London in 1581. New York: Fordham University Press, 1999. (4) Cole, Mary Hill.

The Portable Queen: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Ceremony. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. (2) Dobson, Michael and Nicola J. Watson. England’s Elizabeth: an Afterlife in Fame and Fantasy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003. (1) Doran, Susan. Elizabeth I and Foreign Policy, 1558-1603. New York: Routledge, 2000. (4) Doran, Susan. Monarchy and Matrimony: the Courtships of Elizabeth I. New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge, 1996. (3) Elizabeth: the Golden Age. Dir. Shekar Kapur. Perf. Cate Blanchett, Geoffry Rush, Abbie

Cornish, and Samantha Morton. 2007. DVD. Universal Studios, 2008. (7) Frye, Susan. “The Myth of Elizabeth at Tilbury. ” Sixteenth Century Journal. 23. 1 (1992): 95- 114. (2) Green, Janet M. “’I Myself’: Queen Elizabeth I’s Oration at Tilbury Camp. ” Sixteenth Century Journal. 28. 2 (1997): 421-45. (1) Hammer, Paul E. J. “Sex and the Virgin Queen: Aristocratic Concupiscence and the Court of Elizabeth I. ” Sixteenth Century Journal. 31. 1 (2000): 77-97. (2) King, John N. “Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen.

” Renaissance Quarterly. 43. 1 (1990): 30-74. (1) Perry, Maria. The Word of a Prince: A Life of Elizabeth I from Contemporary Documents. Rochester, NY: Boydell and Brewer Ltd. , 1990. (1) Rozett, Martha Tuck. Constructing a World: Shakespeare England and the New Historical Fiction. Albany, NY: University of New York Press, 2003. (2) Taylor-Smither, Larissa J. “Elizabeth I: A Psychological Profile. ” Sixteenth Century Journal. 15. 1 (1984): 47-72. (3) Thomas, Jane Rush. Behind the Mask: the Life of Queen Elizabeth I. New York: Houghton- Mifflin Trade and Reference, 1998. (2)

You may also be interested in the following: sister golden hair surprise

Modern Cinema Is a Boon Essay

Cinema is a major source of recreation in most countries of the world especially in India where the majority of people live below poverty line. It provides us with entertainment and sometimes educates us too. Depending on the quality of films produced by the directors, one could label cinema as a curse or a boon. Bombay is the main centre of film city. Films are mainly produced in Bombay. There are hundreds of them produced every year. India is known to be the highest producer of movies in the world.

Indian cinema provides us with a good view of the glamour and glitter of the affluent Indian society and also the poverty and misery in the slums of this country. Hence, it more or less, with a few exceptions, presents a fairly authentic picture of the lives of Indians. It educates the public with the help of stories that depict conflicts between the good and the evil in our society.

There is some sort of a moral lesson behind these stories and the society is often greatly influenced by these values.

Some of the stars acting in film become role models for the youth who are usually quite impressionable at their age. Hence, a great responsibility lies with the makers of cinema. They have to form their ideas after careful research and thinking and the public too has to be able to sift out the best from the film, if at all they want to be influenced. But the cinema can become a curse when the movies are full of mindless sex and violence. This could colour the mind of the young boys and girls who watch these movies with great interest. Cinema can become an addiction and these films could sometimes distract the youth so much that they might lose interest in their studies and other work that requires serious concentration.

Cinema has an attraction that one often finds young boys and girls getting so attracted to the cinema that they begin to harbour a craze about joining the film industry themselves. Very few talented people make a name for themselves in the tinsel world and quite a few unfortunate ones waste many a precious year trying to make it big in that world of money and glamour. The cinema can remain a boon for us as long as those who view it keep a balance between what they believe in and what the cinema may be thrusting down their throats. Cinema should be enjoyed and used as a means of correct entertainment and education.

Comparative analysis of formalist and realist film theory Essay

Current essay provides a comparative analysis of formalist and realist film theories, based on theoretical approaches, innovations, critical findings and film-making practice of such renowned representatives of both currents of the film theory as Eisenstein, Arnheim and Bazin. Before beginning the analysis of the abovementioned subjects, one should point out that the difference between form and real material in genuine film-making is dialectical. In cinematograph ideas and reality juxtapose to create certain synthesis.

This effect is produced by means of formal processing of real visual content.

Ideas of a director may be realized with the help of formal elements such as montage, focus, as well as additional means like sound and special effects. This means that even those directors that seek to portray objective reality do not merely reproduce it, but put into their films their ideas, thoughts and concepts. As any form of art, cinematograph heavily depends on its technical (instrumental) and artistic (ideal) means, which are realized with the help of the former.

Formal elements are necessary means for every creative director to transmit his/her own ideas and vision of reality. This, however, should not overstate the fact that formal elements may be used to deviate objective reality and help construct ideological and biased vision thereof. The contrary may be also true with respect to pseudo-realist films, which pretend to portray objective reality, while in fact create mere copy of it, devoid of any intellectual content. This can be used for justification of existent reality.

This is the case for the majority of commercial films and contemporary film-making industry in general, which is centered on using different forms and genres in the view of getting profit. These aspects and meaning of form and reality representation in the film theory should be taken in consideration in this comparative analysis of realist and formalist film theory. There is no denying the importance of the fact that Eisenstein was among the founding fathers of formalist film theory, as he was the first to develop the theory of montage and specific usage of film editing.

These elements of cinematograph constitute the first cornerstone of formalist film theory, as it was developed in Eisenstein’s major works Beyond the Shot and Dramaturgy of Film Form. According to Eisenstein, cinema is mainly about montage (Beyond the Shot, p. 13). Using montage is both technical and artistic procedure, since it helps create meanings by means of combination/copulation of different images or situations. Thereby, as Eisenstein constantly states, the artistic effect is created, which is important in the visual type of communication provided by cinema.

Eisenstein, for instance, tried to show this phenomenon referring to Japanese hieroglyphs, which often create new meanings by means of copulation (Beyond the Shot, p. 14). The most important thought Eisenstein tried to communicate was that formal elements of film production are central to realization of artistic greater ideas and the work with various materials ranging from historical scenes to innovative scenarios. Montage, according to Eisenstein, is not independent vis-a-vis objective and ideational representation of reality.

Besides this, it should be noted that in correspondence with formalist film theory, the inability to use formal elements properly leads to degradation of films as the form of art, and moreover, this precludes realization of director’s ideas – that is ‘intellectual’ film-making. Arnheim, another noted representative of realist film theory, claimed that visual representation of reality in film radically differs from physical perception of reality. This difference, according to Arnheim, gives significance to formal elements of cinema, which create artistic effects.

Arnheim’s thorough analysis of these formal features shows that, if properly used, they may produce interesting emotional effects on spectators (Film and Reality, 323). Arnheim claims that creating images in film is neither two-dimensional, nor three-dimensional, but represents golden middle. He provides us with example of the scene from Ruttmann’s film Berlin, where the director creates juxtaposition of the second and the third dimension by making a shot of two trains moving in opposite directions.

Film representation of this movement, according to Arnheim, creates certain impression and that is, what differentiates film images from real ones (Arnheim, 324). This vision of form in the film production was often regarded as manipulative by such representatives of realist film theory as Andre Bazin, who claimed that formal elements preclude real communication between spectators and film’s images and plot (The evolution of the language of the cinema, p. 48). However, even so opposed to each other, formalist and realist tradition both criticize positivist realism in cinematograph for its ideological function and positivism.

According to Arnheim, documentary genre is not the same as pure reproduction of reality; instead, it is difficult artistic work. Bazin’s great love for documentaries as the representations of objective reality should also be understood considering the abovementioned distinction. Eisenstein’s approach to film production unlike realist school represented by Bazin is based on dialectical theory, which sees the collision of opposites, their simultaneous integrity and negation as a cornerstone of every art. Eisenstein said that shot is not an element, but dialectical cell, which rests in organic unity with entire film.

Contrary to that, realist film theory, represented by Bazin, draws on personalist perspective, which believes that a film should be a representation of auteurship. Bazin is deeply opposed to formalist perspectives, because he thinks that it breaks world in many little pieces and prevents genuine and autonomous perception of reality. Instead, Eisenstein puts particular emphasis on dialectical conflicts between shots, counterpoint of music and shot sequence etc. , which makes his formal approach look integral and all-embracing.

As he claims, the knowledge of these formal dependencies is the core of genuine film production (Beyond the Shot, 16-17). Bazin in his rediscovery of realism in the history of art ends with a statement of great opposition between pseudorealism (which reproduces illusionary appearances) and realism which distributes the truth among spectators. According to Bazin, formalist film-making exemplified by Eisenstein and others extracts meaning from real images and makes it a product of subjective manipulation with reality, rather than its realist representation.

Instead, Bazin claims that realism in film-making is focused on genuine representation of reality, which can be achieved by such technical means as ‘shot-in-depth’, focus or even wide shots (The Evolution of the language of the cinema, p. 49-51). Hence, Bazin does not reject formal elements as such, but transforms them to achieve the purpose of realist representation. The continuity of images and shots should not, however, be interrupted by montage manipulation like in formalist theory; the auteur should follow the unfolding of reality.

This means that time and space should not be artificially separated by montage, which is the case with Eisenstein’s formalism, but instead, artistic truths should be found in the articulation of difficult relations between time and space. (As a result, a spectator has more possibilities of interpretation and autonomous understanding). Deep shot, according to Bazin, helps spectator to get closer to the image, which creates ambiguity of interpretation, which is more artistic than subjective manipulation (Bazin, p. 50).

Moreover, it helps maintain the integrity of the image and specific elements in it, which is according to Bazin, no less important than montage (Bazin, p. 49). These are the basic similarities and differences between formalist and realist film theories. Main approaches of these theories are essentially exemplified by two famous films: Battleship Potemkin by Eisenstein (USSR, 1925) and Red Desert by Antonioni (Italy, 1964). Battleship Potemkin is a silent film by Eisenstein, which may be considered as practical realization of his formal montage theory.

First of all, Eisenstein designed this film to be a propaganda of socialist revolution and, that is why, he put emphasis on emotional messages against repression and for heroism of ordinary people. Eisenstein extensively uses rhythmic and intellectual montage to create certain meaning and emotional effects. This can be best exemplified by famous scene on Odessa steps, where Tsarist forces massacred civil population. Eisenstein uses close-ups and montage juxtapositions of Tsarist’s forces and victims of massacre.

The dramatic close-ups of victim’s faces and cold and brutal faces of the soldiers create deep emotional effects, which is the cornerstone of formalist film theory. Wonderful example of shot juxtaposition in the film is the image of baby carriage falling down the stairs and soldiers’ legs going down after it. The montage sequence of this scene has certain artistic meaning: it portrays the brutality of Tsarist regime and its inhuman character and articulates these features by showing the images of its innocent victims.

The relations between these two shots are intellectual, that is they help spectators interpret separate images and give meaning to them. Opposite realist theory can be best exemplified by Antonioni’s Red Dessert. The film may be characterized by avoiding manipulation with montage. Instead, author’s realist vision of human alienation, loneliness and ugliness of modern civilization is realized through examining continuity of urban life, its relations and contradictions. Such elements of realist film theory as deep focus, wide shots, and color arrangements.

Colors in Antonioni’s film also play formalist function, as he uses different tones and colors for depicting reality. For instance, plants in the film and surrounding objects are represented in red color, which creates certain emotional effects and embeds ambiguity. The result may be described as empathy into the destiny of man in industrial world, which helps poetically describe protagonist’s relations with it. To sum it up, main examples of realist and formalist approach were analyzed, and basic feature of both theories were revealed.