Showing posts with label Section A. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Section A. Show all posts

Thursday, 20 February 2020

The Lady From Shanghai (1948)


The Lady From Shanghai (1948) is an imaginative, complicated, unsettling film noir who-dun-it thriller, with fascinating visuals and tilting compositions, luminous and brilliant camerawork (by Charles Lawton, Jr.), and numerous sub-plots and confounding plot twists. Although the tale of betrayal, lust, greed and murder was filmed in late 1946 and finished in early 1947, it wasn't released until late in 1948 - it failed both at the box-office and as a critical success (there were no Academy Award nominations).

The film, originally titled Take This Woman and then Black Irish, was made when major stars Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth (in her last film under contract to Columbia Pictures) were still married although estranged and drifting apart. [Note: Their divorce decree was issued in November, 1947, thereby making the film itself and their characterizations a visualization of their own personal breakup]. Believing that Hayworth's sexy screen image (after her success in Gilda (1946)) was tarnished forever with her role in the film as a wicked and evil temptress, studio chief Harry Cohn was also incensed to find that his reigning, top box-office star's magnificent auburn hair was bobbed, waved and bleached blonde for the film.

Orson Welles served as director, producer, screenplay writer, and actor, basing his screenplay upon Sherwood King's 1938 novel If I Die Before I Wake. The film was shot on locations including Acapulco and San Francisco (such as the Sausalito waterfront and the Valhalla Bar and Cafe, Chinatown, the Steinhart Aquarium in Golden Gate Park, and Whitney's Playland amusement park at the beach), and on Columbia studios sets, and features numerous classic set-pieces including: the aquarium scene, and the funhouse and Hall of Mirrors climax. [Note: The numerous close-ups of Rita Hayworth in the film were later added by Welles in Hollywood upon orders of the studio, to lend strength to her 'star' power.]

Ultimately, the film's length was severely cut down by one hour, creating an almost incomprehensible, discontinuous, cryptic patchwork from numerous retakes and substantial edits. This was Welles' last Hollywood film until the making of Touch of Evil (1958) ten years later.

Tuesday, 11 February 2020

What’s new in Blade Runner: The Final Cut?


So what exactly has changed? And is it worth all the fuss?
After attending a recent screening, I can report that there are significant differences, mainly improvements, between this new version and Ridley’s first Director’s Cut released in 1992.
First off, the unicorn dream sequence, originally introduced in the Director’s Cut, has been extended. Deckard’s daydream of a unicorn galloping through a forest in slow motion is a pivotal scene, apparently suggesting that Deckard, like Rachel, is a replicant. In a recent article in Wired, Ridley explained why.
“Gaff, at the end, doesn’t like Deckard, and we don’t really know why,” said Ridley, after being asked whether it was on paper that Deckard was a replicant. “And if you take for granted for a moment that, let’s say, Deckard is Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, just at the very end, leaves a piece of origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet. And it’s of a unicorn, right? So, the unicorn that’s used in Deckard’s daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn’t usually talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it’s Gaff’s message to say, ‘I’ve basically read your file, mate.’”
Physically, Blade Runner has been altered to take advantage of the latest improvements in film and audio technology. The quality of the print and the audio has been significantly enhanced. A new digital print of the film was created from the original negatives, while the special effects were updated and polished. Special effects footage was scanned in at 8,000 lines per frame, which is four times the resolution used for most restorations. The dystopic Los Angeles landscape of 2019 is now more stunning than ever before. Watching flames leap skywards as a spinner flies through the darkness during the opening sequence is mesmerising.
Vangelis’ evocative soundtrack, remastered for The Final Cut in 5.1 Dolby Digital surround sound, sounds better than ever, complimenting the story perfectly, from the fast-paced action sequences to the slow, haunting scenes in Deckard’s smoke filled apartment.
One of the most compelling aspects of Blade Runner is its bleak depiction of a dark decaying world lost in drizzle and shadow. The multicultural inhabitants struggle through busy city streets but reside in almost empty skyscrapers, abandoned by the majority lucky enough to have left for better lives off-world.
Extra footage and alterations enhance this compelling vision, including an additional shot of a crowded city street, a brief sequence of two exotic dancers wearing hockey masks, and a shot of Deckard meeting a police officer before he enters the Snake Pit.
There’s also new footage of Zhora crashing through a display case after being pursued by Deckard. This scene was reshot. The original actress, Joanna Cassidy, performed the stunt herself, replacing original footage of an obvious stunt double.
Roy Batty’s death scene, where a dove is released into a bright blue sky, supposedly at night, now shows the dove flying into a night sky, with an appropriate bleak backdrop.
Some scenes, such as Deckard’s first meeting with Gaff in the noodle bar, have been trimmed, as they ran too long after the removal of Deckard’s voice-over from the original theatrical release.
Various pieces of dialogue too have been inserted or altered. In an early scene, where Bryant and Deckard are looking at Nexus 6 profiles, Bryant now describes Leon’s job. When he talks about replicants being caught in an electrical field, the dialogue has been changed from: “One of them got fried running through an electrical field” to “Two of them got fried running through an electrical field”. This alteration fixes the problem of a sixth replicant unaccounted for in earlier versions.
In the scene where Batty confronts Tyrell, the line, “I want more life, fucker” has been replaced with “I want more life, father”. In the same scene, after Batty has killed Tyrell, he now says to Sebastian, “I’m sorry Sebastian. Come. Come.”
Deckard’s conversation with a snake merchant has been rerecorded and reworked. In the 1992 Director’s Cut, the dialogue is completely out of sync, making it very distracting.
Other additions include extra violence. All of the violent scenes in the International Cut that were deleted in the U.S. theatrical release have been reinserted, most unsettlingly when Roy Batty crushes Tyrell’s head in his hands, gouging out his eyes. Pris’s shocking and sad death scene, her arms and legs thrashing about wildly, also appears to be have been extended. Presumably, censorship is not as restrictive as it had been when the film was originally released. Personally, I think they could have left the level of gore as it was.
With so many previous versions, you could be forgiven for thinking that Blade Runner: The Final Cut is not worth much of our time. Some may argue that Ridley is merely tweaking a film that has already been tweaked well beyond its use by date. There’s some support for this given that Ridley Scott was quoted at the Venice Film Festival recently claiming that the science fiction genre is as dead as the Western.
“There’s nothing original,” he said. “We’ve seen it all before. Been there. Done it”.
Perhaps that’s why, instead of creating a whole new science fiction film, he has merely retouched an old one.
You could, of course, hold an even more cynical view: this latest version is nothing more than a commercial exercise. Are Warner Bros. and Ridley Scott merely trying to squeeze the last drops out of loyal fans who should know better?
After viewing Blade Runner: The Final Cut in all its enhanced glory, I’d have to disagree. This is not just a patch up job attempting to cash in on a cult film. Like an oil painter retouching a masterpiece, or a novelist polishing prose, Ridley is trying to complete his vision. The film has been improved markedly using all the time, technology, and feedback Ridley had at his disposal. In an article for in New York Times, Ridley stated that he had “never paid quite so much attention to a movie, ever.”
That’s not to say that it’s flawless. Detectives in the future, for example, appear to lack some basic common sense: when Bryant shows Deckard profiles of the Nexus 6 replicants, it’s clear they know exactly what they all look like. So why didn’t Holden, whom we see in an early scene giving a Voight-Kamff test to Leon, already know that Leon was a replicant? Didn’t anyone give him the mug shots?
Equally, if Deckard really is a Nexus 7 created to work as an exterminator, why is he lacking the strength of the inferior Nexus 6 models he is chasing? He seems to spend a large part of the film being bashed to a pulp.

Saturday, 17 February 2018

Ridley Scott - Den of Geek Interview


So with Blade Runner - and you probably get asked this a lot - but how has it been over the last 35 years to see so many things in that film that feel more familiar now than they did back then.
Well, when I did Blade Runner, I'd already been successful since I was about 27. I started my company at 27, and it's 50 years old this year. We've been successful in both London and the US - in fact, the US is the bigger operation. The company still has about 60 directors. So by the time I was... let's see, I was 40 when I did The Duellists, I was 42 when I did Alien, nearly 44 on Blade Runner. I'm really a good businessman. I'm not having any wool pulled over my eyes. I knew exactly what I was walking into.
Because I was a new person on the block - I'd never made a film in Hollywood before. And so what I walked into was not pleasant and was very controlling, and very unionised. And because of that, I was not allowed to work how I'd normally work, because I was a [camera] operator, on 2,500 commercials, on The Duellists, on Alien, I operate. And I couldn't operate on Blade Runner, so that to me was tricky. I spent a lot of time finding the very best person that would pretty well... I'm blessed with a great eye. I've always had a great eye.
And so finding a cameraman who's terrific, who at the time was very ill, from which he would pass away. But he was the best around, Jordan Cronenweth. He had a disease they'd misdiagnosed, so by the time I got to him he was walking with a walking stick and very, very shaky. He had a crew around him who loved him. But my investors said, "Why the fuck did you hire this cameraman?" I said, "Because he's the best in the business."
So between he and I, we put together the way it should look. But then Syd Mead and Lawrence Paull [production designer] and I can draw. Because I was at art school, I can really draw and really paint and really envision. I knew the world I wanted to create, which was a combination of Hong Kong prior to any skyscrapers. I'd shot in Hong Kong before the first bank of Hong Kong went up. Hong Kong was an eastern medieval town - it was incredible. I always fitted that into New York, because in New York I spent a lot of time going in and out for advertising jaunts. New York at that point was smelly and dirty - I didn't like it. It wasn't until [Mayor, Michael] Bloomberg came in and really made it what it is. New York right now is fantastic  - bore no relationship to New York in the 60s. But I thought New York meets Hong Kong was it. I had to make a decision as to whether the prevalent nationality would be Mexican, Hispanic, or Chinese. I went Chinese. I think it's gonna be Mexican. 
Where did the Noir element come in, because that's what really adds the spice to the sci-fi.
You've got to remember, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep was an endless book. An endless amount of story. My show is Man In The High Castle. That's my show. So Dick's novel... we fell out, because I carelessly said, "I couldn't get through it." And he was really pissed off. Now I know the family and the daughters and everything, so I think it's all mended. But nevertheless, what I got from the book - I read about 20 pages.
What had happened was, Hampton had buried himself alive in that kind of book, and discovered it was incredibly complex. 19 stories in the first 50 pages. He'd gone for the backbone of the story, which is fundamentally, the quarry falls in love with the hunter. It was all taking place in an apartment - internalised storytelling, as [Philip K] Dick would have. And I was doing Alien, I was mixing Alien, and Michael Deeley came over to me and said, "Read this play that Hampton's written. What do you think?" I said, "I love the writing. I love the writer." I thought about it for almost eight months, because I didn't want to go back and do another science fiction.
Eight months later, I found myself doing Dune, and then I thought, "What am I doing Dune for?" I think Blade Runner,that was a great thing. I went to Hollywood, to cut a long story short, and spent the next five months every day, with probably the best time I've had ever working with a writer. My opening premise with Hampton was, "Right, you've got a story that purports a humanoid, or a robot, that looks so human that you can't tell the difference. And this person falls in love with him. I want to see what it looks like outside. I want to see what the world [looks like], and who's doing this."
From that moment, once we opened the door onto that whole thing, it evolved into this pretty epic universe. And through it, aware or not, I don't think whether I'm doing film noir or any of that shit. I just make movies, and if at the end someone calls it film noir, then so be it. God bless you. Because you never breathe a word of that in Hollywood. They go, "Film noir? I'm out of here, thank you very much. It's too intellectual."
But film noir it was, on a very grand level  - Philip Marlowe, really. That's why I'd always diddled around with the idea of voice-over, because Francis had just done a brilliant film called Apocalypse Now, where I think the voice-over was really the third dimension of the film. Because Martin [Sheen] was fundamentally a silent, savage witness through the whole process - and protagonist - but didn't really speak other than to say, "I told you we shouldn't have stopped", having killed the children and the dog. I thought his voice-over was terrific.
So I had that on the side, as a style but not as a necessity. As a style, should we play around with that? Because the film, when it was finished, was so obscure to most people, they were more distracted by the environment - watching the pictures. The story's pretty straightforward. But it's when you're trying to take everything in that you're going, "What? Why is it dark? Why is it always raining?" Etc. And so that was where we employed the idea of voice-over, which to me became even more confusing - it wasn't a good thing to do. Then later, the history was, it was discovered by accident as a print without the voice-over at a film festival.
One thing I'd learned by the time I was that age was, and I had it fully endorsed by a very bad article by Pauline Kael - and you can print this: I was so angry. I'm still angry that she destroyed the film in three and a half full pages of the New Yorker, without mercy. Even becoming personal. And I never met her. Because I'm 44, I'm mature - pretty mature at that point. And I thought, "You know what? I'll never read another piece of criticism about me". I've never read press since. Because if you read press and it's great, the danger is you'll think you rule the world for about half an hour, and you don't, you never do. And if you read bad press, they can be wrong. And she was so fucking wrong. She was wrong to do that. Also, what's wrong about critique is, I can't reply. But I replied to the editor, saying, "If she didn't like the film that much, why did she devote so much time to its destruction?" Why didn't you just ignore me? Ignoring me's fine.
But in any other industry, if I'd been one of the investors, I'd have sued her, because she can kill a movie before it's even off the starting block. To me, that's as bad as industrial espionage.
Full interview: Here

Friday, 16 February 2018

'Alien', 'Blade Runner' & 'Inception': Video Essays


I discovered these sci-fi video essays at Film Studies For Free. They are made for educational and critical purposes, using fair use/fair dealing procedures, by the Irish filmmaker, broadcaster, and lecturer Steven Benedict.

They are well edited, wide-ranging, insightful, and a great for source for discussion of the key concepts and themes you will encounter during the course. Please take time to view each one to enhance your knowledge and understanding of the subject.

Analysis of Alien from Steven Benedict on Vimeo.

Analysis of Blade Runner from Steven Benedict on Vimeo.

Analysis of Inception from Steven Benedict on Vimeo.

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

Genre: Science-Fiction (Documentary edit)


Science fiction film is a film genre that uses science fictionspeculativescience-based depictions of phenomena that are not necessarily accepted by mainstream science, such as extraterrestrial life formsalien worldsextrasensory perception, and time travel, often along with futuristic elements such as spacecraftrobotscyborgsinterstellar space travel or other technologies. Science fiction films have often been used to focus on political or social issues, and to explore philosophical issues like the human condition. In many cases, tropes derived from written science fiction may be used by filmmakers ignorant of or at best indifferent to the standards of scientific plausibility and plot logic to which written science fiction is traditionally held.
The genre has existed since the early years of silent cinema, when Georges Melies' A Trip to the Moon (1902) amazed audiences with its trick photography effects. The next major example in the genre was the 1927 film Metropolis. From the 1930s to the 1950s, the genre consisted mainly of low-budget B-movies. After Stanley Kubrick's 1968 landmark 2001: A Space Odyssey, the science fiction film genre was taken more seriously. In the late 1970s, big-budget science fiction films filled with special effects became popular with audiences after the success of Star Wars and paved the way for the blockbuster hits of subsequent decades.
Defining precisely which films belong to the science fiction genre is often difficult, as there is no universally accepted definition of the genre, or in fact its underlying genre in literature. According to one definition:
Science fiction film is a film genre which emphasizes actual, extrapolative, or speculative science and the empirical method, interacting in a social context with the lesser emphasized, but still present, transcendentalism of magic and religion, in an attempt to reconcile man with the unknown (Sobchack 63).
This definition assumes that a continuum exists between (real-world) empiricism and (supernaturaltranscendentalism, with science fiction film on the side of empiricism, andhorror film and fantasy film on the side of transcendentalism. However, there are numerous well-known examples of science fiction horror films, epitomized by such pictures as Frankenstein and Alien.
The visual style of science fiction film can be characterized by a clash between alien and familiar images. This clash is implemented when alien images become familiar, as in A Clockwork Orange, when the repetitions of the Korova Milkbar make the alien decor seem more familiar. As well, familiar images become alien, as in the films Repo Man and Liquid Sky.  For example, in Dr. Strangelove, the distortion of the humans make the familiar images seem more alien.  Finally, alien and familiar images are juxtaposed, as inThe Deadly Mantis, when a giant praying mantis is shown climbing the Washington Monument.
Cultural theorist Scott Bukatman has proposed that science fiction film allows contemporary culture to witness an expression of the sublime, be it through exaggerated scale, apocalypse or transcendence.

Tuesday, 13 February 2018

Introduction to Science Fiction


Science Fiction Films are usually scientific, visionary, comic-strip-like, and imaginative, and usually visualized through fanciful, imaginative settings, expert film production design, advanced technology gadgets (i.e., robots and spaceships), scientific developments, or by fantastic special effects. Sci-fi films are complete with heroes, distant planets, impossible quests, improbable settings, fantastic places, great dark and shadowy villains, futuristic technology and gizmos, and unknown and inexplicable forces. Many other SF films feature time travels or fantastic journeys, and are set either on Earth, into outer space, or (most often) into the future time. Quite a few examples of science-fiction cinema owe their origins to writers Jules Verne and H.G. Wells.

They often portray the dangerous and sinister nature of knowledge ('there are some things Man is not meant to know') (i.e., the classic Frankenstein (1931), The Island of Lost Souls (1933), and David Cronenberg's The Fly (1986) - an updating of the 1958 version directed by Kurt Neumann and starring Vincent Price), and vital issues about the nature of mankind and our place in the whole scheme of things, including the threatening, existential loss of personal individuality (i.e.,Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), and The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)). Plots of space-related conspiracies (Capricorn One (1977)), supercomputers threatening impregnation (Demon Seed (1977)), the results of germ-warfare (The Omega Man (1971)) and laboratory-bred viruses or plagues (28 Days Later (2002)), black-hole exploration (Event Horizon (1997)), and futuristic genetic engineering and cloning (Gattaca (1997) and Michael Bay's The Island (2005)) show the tremendous range that science-fiction can delve into.

Strange and extraordinary microscopic organisms or giant, mutant monsters ('things or creatures from space') may be unleashed, either created by misguided mad scientists or by nuclear havoc (i.e., The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953)). Sci-fi tales have a prophetic nature (they often attempt to figure out or depict the future) and are often set in a speculative future time. They may provide a grim outlook, portraying a dystopic view of the world that appears grim, decayed and un-nerving (i.e., Metropolis (1927) with its underground slave population and view of the effects of industrialization, the portrayal of 'Big Brother' society in1984 (1956 and 1984), nuclear annihilation in a post-apocalyptic world in On the Beach (1959), Douglas Trumbull's vision of eco-disaster in Silent Running (1972), Michael Crichton's Westworld (1973) with androids malfunctioning, Soylent Green (1973) with its famous quote: "Soylent Green IS PEOPLE!", 'perfect' suburbanite wives in The Stepford Wives (1975), and the popular gladiatorial sport of the year 2018 in Rollerball (1975)). Commonly, sci-fi films express society's anxiety about technology and how to forecast and control the impact of technological and environmental change on contemporary society.

Science fiction often expresses the potential of technology to destroy humankind through Armaggedon-like events, wars between worlds, Earth-imperiling encounters or disasters (i.e., The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951), When Worlds Collide (1951), The War of the Worlds (1953), the two Hollywood blockbusters Deep Impact (1998) and Armageddon (1998), and The Day After Tomorrow (2004), etc.). In many science-fiction tales, aliens, creatures, or beings (sometimes from our deep subconscious, sometimes in space or in other dimensions) are unearthed and take the mythical fight to new metaphoric dimensions or planes, depicting an eternal struggle or battle (good vs. evil) that is played out by recognizable archetypes and warriors (i.e., Forbidden Planet (1956) with references to the 'id monster' from Shakespeare's The Tempest, the space opera Star Wars (1977) with knights and a princess with her galaxy's kingdom to save, The Fifth Element (1997), and the metaphysical Solaris (1972 and 2002)). Beginning in the 80s, science fiction began to be feverishly populated by noirish, cyberpunk films, with characters including cyber-warriors, hackers, virtual reality dreamers and druggies, and underworld low-lifers in nightmarish, un-real worlds (i.e., Blade Runner (1982), Strange Days (1995), Johnny Mnemonic (1995), and The Matrix (1999)).

Borrowing and Hybrid Genre Blending in Sci-Fi Films:
The genre is predominantly a version of fantasy films ( Star Wars (1977)), but can easily overlap with horror films, particularly when technology or alien life forms become malevolent (Alien (1979)) in a confined spaceship (much like a haunted-house story). Quite a few science-fiction films took an Earth-bound tale and transported it to outer space: High Noon (1952) became Outland (1980), The Magnificent Seven (1960) was spoofed in Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), Enemy Mine (1985) was essentially a remake of Hell in the Pacific (1968) with Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune, and the chariot race of Ben-Hur (1959) was duplicated in the pod-race of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999).

Read more @ filmsite.org

Monday, 12 February 2018

Alien (1979) - Film Analysis

“Alien” was released in May of 1979 by 20th Century Fox with the tagline, “In space, no one can hear you scream.” The film was directed by Ridley Scott, produced by Gordon Carroll, David Giler, and Walter Hill and written by Dan O’Bannon, who also developed the film’s screenplay. This science fiction horror film regards an alien creature that stalks and kills crew members on the spaceship Nostromo after being brought aboard. Sigourney Weaver plays as Ripley, a warrant officer and is also the protagonist of the film. The film also features an all star cast that includes, Bolaji Badejo as the alien, Veronica Cartwright as Lambert, Ian Holm as Ash, John Hurt as Kane, Yaphet Kotto as Parker, Tom Skerritt as Dallas, and Harry Dean Stanton as Brett. In charge of the Academy Award winning visual effects was cinematographer Derek Vanlint, while the eerie film soundtrack was created Jerry Goldsmith. The film was a breakthrough for the science fiction genre as well as the horror genre and received both critical acclaim and commercial box office success bringing in a gross $104,931,801 with a budget of $11 million.

“Alien” came to the American screen in a time of immense cultural upheaval. The economy in the 1970s experienced periods of inflation, recession, and high unemployment. The economic conditions led to price controls and new and enhanced programs to combat poverty and unemployment. The decade was also marked by a growing importance of women in the workforce, as well as a second wave of feminist views. Sexual freedom and experimentation in the 1960s contributed to an uprising of sexually transmitted diseases in the 1970s, and a realization that these could affect the majority of the population. Exponential change in technology was also a major issue in the 70s. Many of these cultural changes attributed to both the horror and financial success of “Alien” because of the film’s prevalent consistency within the mind of 1970s America.

In October 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo “In response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military" until March 1974. In 1979 America experienced its second oil crisis because of disrupted productions and Iranian revolution. Throughout this time Americans felt a dread of continuous oil price increases and a worry that eventually there would be no more oil or gasoline. “Alien” plays on this fear immediately when it mentions that the crew’s main missions was mining mineral ore from distant places in the galaxy and return them to earth. They were on a mission to seek new forms of energy from other places than the Middle East, and it confirms fears that eventually the US would have to look elsewhere for its energy resources.

“Alien” was released in May of 1979, a short time after the partial nuclear meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Though the movie was already finished by the time of the accident, it had an effect on the way the movie was viewed. Technology getting out of control is a theme presented in Alien. Ash, the Science Officer of the Nostromo is an android. The rest of the crew, however, is not aware of this. Ash, and Mother, the ship’s onboard computer have been collaborating from the beginning to capture the alien creature. The lives of the crew are of minor significance to them. Ash goes so far as to attack Ripley, losing all normal functions in a “meltdown” that he experiences. People could identify with their lives being put in danger by machines that they could not control.

Another cultural context relevant to “Alien” is that of sexually transmitted diseases. Herpes, gonorrhea, and Chlamydia had become widespread in America, affecting nearly forty percent of sexually active individuals. For the first time, Americans had become frightened of the risk of disease in fornication. The Alien creature, being the villain archetype, is born through penetration of a host, Executive Officer Kane. Ripley makes an extensive point to follow quarantine procedure for fear of infection. This “infection” spread as the Alien grew rapidly and killed the rest of the crew. Audiences would relate to the need for quarantine and sterilization, noting how this sexually transmitted parasite goes on to destroy the crew it resides with.

But the strongest cultural context present within “Alien” is its embodiment of Feminism. The role of women in society was going through a turning point in the 1970s. Women’s organizations fought for an amendment to the United States Constitution known as the Equal Rights Amendment that would explicitly state that men and women were equal under the law. In 1974, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibited discrimination in consumer credit practices on the basis of sex, race, marital status, religion, national origin, or age. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act banned employment discrimination against pregnant women, stating a woman cannot be fired or denied a job or a promotion because she is or may become pregnant, nor can she be forced to take a pregnancy leave if she is willing and able to work. 1978 saw the largest march for equality in the history of the Feminist movement, the Equal Rights Amendment Extension March, which had over one-hundred thousand people in it. The 70s therefore saw a strong empowerment of woman within a predominantly patriarchal.

“Alien” shows us a clear instance of gender-role reversal in the heroine archetype. The story begins with a clear hierarchy of male dominants. As the film progresses however, the men are killed or fall under chain of command to women. Both the ship’s Captain and Executive Officer are used for the Alien’s reproduction, giving them a “mother” aspect. Ash even refers to the creature as “Kane’s son” referencing him as a mother. Ripley is then given the role of slaying the “monster” of the film, which was a presumed male role, dating back to medieval times. Making the main character of “Alien” a woman was a risky move by the film makers, and it ultimately proved successful. Had the film been released a few years earlier, audiences might not have accepted such a tough female protagonist, or it would have overwhelmed the rest of the film.

“Alien” is a science fiction horror film. Horror films are unsettling movies that strive to elicit the emotions of fear, disgust, panic, alarm, and shock from viewers through the means of the macabre and supernatural. Science Fiction Film is a film genre that uses speculative, science-based depictions of phenomena that are not necessarily accepted by mainstream science, such as extra-terrestrial life forms, alien worlds, and time travel, often along with futuristic elements such as spacecraft, robots, or other technologies. Since “Alien” primarily frightened the audience and evoked “eerie dread” it is categorized first as a horror film, but falls into the science fiction sub genre because it is set in the future and takes place aboard a space ship.

In a science fiction horror film, the threats usually come from the unknown, but can also include films in which the threat comes from technology. In “Alien”, the danger comes from an extraterrestrial creature that is feared both for its dangerous abilities, and its unpredictable hostility. Fear of uncontrollable technology is also present, in how Ash and Mother plot to preserve the Alien without the knowledge of the crew. The expectations and characteristics of science fiction horror were changed drastically after the release of “Alien” in 1979. Prior to this, most science fiction horror films were low budget B movies, mostly in the 1950s. They played on fear of the “other”, a threat from outside. While the threats in these films often came from outer space, they often played on America’s fear of communism and the Cold War. Some examples of this type of film include “The Thing from Another World”, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, and “It Came from Outer Space”

“Alien” introduced a new kind of science fiction horror. The threat still comes from the unknown, but the environment and method of attack were different. “Alien” borrowed elements from other types of horror film, like the slasher subgenre introduced by “Psycho” in 1960. Instead of a creepy old mansion where the characters were stalked by a serial killer, there could be a claustrophobic space ship where the characters were hunted by an alien creature. “Alien” uses the reveal of the tail, its shadow, or the head of the alien the same way a slasher film might reveal the killer’s knife while the victim is looking the other way. In the famous “shower scene” from “Psycho” the female victim’s face is turned away from the killer while he creeps up behind her. Likewise, when Ripley and Dallas are in the ICU looking for the infant alien creature, the tail of the alien lowered down behind Ripley, eventually startling her. “Alien” uses a formula common to many slasher films in that a group of people are killed one by one until the lead character, usually female, kills the antagonist. The difference is that science fiction is a genre of film that was usually dominated by male characters and male fans. By making the lead character Ripley female, the film makers expanded their potential audience and successfully combined horror and science fiction, paving the way for more female action stars in science fiction.

“Alien” quickly became a hit with both horror and science fiction audiences. It was the third highest grossing film in 1979 worldwide. “Alien” lead to five sequels, and continues to be a popular and successful franchise today. “Alien” followed on the success of “Star Wars” in 1977. Twentieth Century Fox saw the audience that science fiction could draw, and capitalized on that audience. “Alien” was intended to be for an older crowd, but would still aim to draw science fiction fans. “Jaws” was another movie that showed mainstream audiences were interested in horror outside of the standard slasher films. One reason that “Alien” was successful is because it is a movie set in a fictional universe, yet it remains identifiable with audiences today. The characters are easily identifiable because they are presented as regular blue collar workers, just in a different setting and time. They react how we would react in most cases. No year is given to explain how far in the future this is, which makes it seem less removed from our time. The technology presented in the movie appears very primitive. This allows the audience to understand what is happening without having to explain how the technology works or what it does.

The scene that “Alien” is more remembered for then any other is the scene when the alien bursts out of Kane’s chest, killing him in the process. This scene is very memorable for a number of reasons, primarily because of its level of gore, and disgusting nature. Kane does an excellent job portraying the pain of what it would feel like to be eaten alive from the inside. The sound effects also do a good job in making the audience imagine what is going on inside Kane’s body. Audiences had never seen anything quite like that before this movie. Part of the reason that the chest bursting scene is so memorable is that it’s symbolic to our fear of abjection. Abjection deals with the boundary between us and everything else. According to the French psychoanalyst Julia Kristeva, since the abject is situated outside the symbolic order, being forced to face it is an inherently traumatic experience. This act is done in the light of the parts of ourselves that we exclude: that is, the mother. We must abject the maternal, the object which has created us, in order to construct an identity. There is no greater way of showing abjection on film then having a creature eat a person from inside out and emerge. Because of this, this scene has survived to be one of the most shocking and horrific in the history of horror.

Director Ridley Scott chose not to show the Alien creature in full through most of the film, showing only pieces of it while keeping most of its body in shadow in order to heighten the sense of terror and suspense. The audience could thus project their own fears into imagining what the rest of the creature might look like. This technique was highly successful and continues to be seen repeatedly in Modern American Horror films to this day.

“Alien” uses various elements of film noir along with other elements of German Expressionism and traditional Silent Horror. The planet where the Alien resides, most of the ship, and even the escape pod is shot using low key lighting. This is to symbolize the Alien’s presence in that area, or symbolically, the presence of evil. Well lit areas such as the stasis room, mother’s central control room, and the kitchen corresponded with the sanctity or safety of the area. When Dallas and Ash first attempted to remove the Alien from Kane’s face in the ICU, the room was well lit and signified no danger, yet when they returned to find the Alien missing in the room, it was dark and ominous. Scott used an abundance of close-up angle shots of the various characters and the Alien to show their fear and hide the Alien’s true form from the audience.

The Mise-en-scene of “Alien” is beautifully portrayed when Ripley is attempting to escape the ship. Pressured air is escaping from every leaky gasket, water dripping from the pipes, emergency lights flashing red throughout each corridor, and sewer-like flooring gives the entire environment a hellish feeling. The colors used reflect a variety of black and white shades as in Film Noir, but include neon greens, bright lucid reds to give it a surreal space look. Another interesting motif in the film is the reoccurring feel of wetness. Water drips from each corridor near the engineering rooms, viscous liquid drips from the Alien’s body and mouth, and sweat runs down from the crew’s faces (mostly Ripley). The heat, gas, and wetness give the ship a living breathing aspect, with more of an environmental feel than a cold mechanical look. The environment is like a jungle, when chains hanging like vines, hidden caves, and running water, with the Alien acting as a carnivore hunting its prey.

The final quality of the film that gives it its edge and horror is its soundtrack. The sound is quiet and surreal, with an underlying eeriness about it. There are various sounds of wind howling, screeching sounds, and monotonous circling of violin and electronics. It’s amazing and ironic to see a soundtrack make such an impact, when the sounds are low key and faint, barely audible except in certain turning points of the film. The opening scene presents this rather well. While small lines appear before a black screen revealing the title, we see it fade into space, while a subtle, low key flute plays in the background with howling sounds. It completely counters the main title sequence feel of “Star Wars” with its trumpets of extravagance. This subtle low-key soundtrack gives it a true space feel, and resorts back to its “In space no one can hear you scream” motto.

“Alien” continues to frighten audiences throughout for its subjectivity into the unknown and darkness of space. We are forced to look inward into our own dark voids and become utterly helpless and vulnerable to the Alien’s uncanny power. “Alien” reflected the fears and uncertainty of 1970s America, while perfectly referencing previous work in the genre. A monster film, a slasher film, a science fiction film, a horror film, “Alien” remains timeless in our eyes for its innovation and style, both ideal in presenting us with a story of horror in the dangers of discovery, and will continue to haunt the dreams of audiences for decades to come.

Saturday, 10 October 2015

Do genres in the cinema really exist and if so, can they be defined? (Offscreen.com)


“Genres isn’t a word that pops up in every conversation about films or every review – but the idea is second nature to the movies and our awareness of them. Movies belong to genres much the way people belong to families or ethnic groups. Name one of the classic, bedrock genres – Western, comedy, musical, war film, gangster picture, science fiction, horror – and even the most casual moviegoer will come up with a mental image of it, partly visual, partly conceptual” (Richard T. Jameson, They Went Thataway, 1994, p. IX).

“The master image for genre criticism is the triangle composed of artist/film/audience. Genres may be defined as patterns/form/styles/structures which transcend individual films, and which supervise both their construction by the filmmaker, and their reading by an audience” (Tom Ryall, quoted by Stephen Neale, Genre, 1980, p. 7).

“…genre can be defined as a structural pattern which embodies a universal life pattern or myth in the materials of language… Genre is universal, basic to human perceptions of life” (John Cawelti, The Six-gun Mystique, 1975, p. 30).

As Barry Keith Grant writes in the introduction of his genre reader, “the work of defining film genres is surprisingly difficult and complex’” [1] because “…recognition of the importance of genre in the cinema is a relatively recent development….although chronologically it narrowly predates the early work of auteur criticism.” [2] Grant takes notice that until the late 1940s and early 1950s – when Robert Warshow and genre pioneer André Bazin wrote the first significant essays on film genre (about gangster movies and about the Western) – films were only distinguished by a phrase (for example, ‘a war movie’) “used as a convenient label to give one an idea of what the story was like, what to expect generally from a film.” [3] As before in literature, in painting and in other forms of art, “genre became a critical term, providing another conceptual framework for understanding movies.” [4] A genre classification can also double as a precise commercial study because it evokes certain audience expectations and therefore it allows one to establish classifications, comparisons, balance-sheets, valuations for the future and so on. Although it has been helpful for cinema studies, classifying films in accordance with their genre remains a difficult and risky endeavor because genre ‘impurity’ is by now, some twenty years after the solidification of genre study, a constant characteristic and a usual practice of the cinema as art and as industry.

Full article: Here

Friday, 1 May 2015

10 big problems with modern day blockbuster cinema

Inaudible dialogue and revealing trailers are two problems Hollywood faces.

Blockbuster cinema is constantly changing - do you agree? Read more at Den of Geek!

1. Inaudible dialogue

Let’s start with something that puts an immediate firewall between the audience and what’s happening on the screen: the fact that the plague of inaudible dialogue is refusing to go away. Too often, thanks to the loudness of explosions all around, bad sound mixing, or a refusal to re-record dialogue in the case of certain directors, it’s impossible to hear what characters are saying on the screen.

Sometimes, this doesn’t matter. A line thrown away in the middle of an action sequence is rarely pivotal. However, at times, a lost line really, really does make a difference. In some cases, an entire character’s performance, though, can be hard to decipher.

2. The multiplex


Mark Kermode managed a whole book on the problem with modern movies, in which he devotes a hefty page count to multiplex cinemas, and the deterioration of the art of projection.

He’s bang on the money with some of his points about the multiplex, too. The multiplex is reflective of the state of modern day television, in that there are hundreds of channels that still offer surprisingly little to watch. The whole idea, in an ideal world, of one building having 10, 20 or even 30 screens devoted to film is that it can host a broad selection of programming.

3. The slow decline of mid-budget movies


As we talked about here, Paramount Pictures made quite a living for itself in the 1990s by actively targeting the mid-priced thriller. While other studios were kickstarting the rush to make $100m+ blockbusters - a movement that Paramount is inevitably now a paid up member to - the studio was content to find thrillers costing $30-40m, knowing that it wouldn't get a gigantic box office take out of them, but would bring home a good profit.

Those days are all but gone. It was while on the press tour for The Lone Ranger (budget: $200m+) that director Gore Verbinski lamented the fact that the current Hollywood system supports small movies (courtesy of studios' marquee labels, such as Sony Classics) and massive blockbusters. 

4. Intolerance of the different


A real problem, this. The common complaint that generally follows any list of upcoming big movies is that they're all the same, or they're all sequels, or they're all franchises. Where are the original films, or the standalone big movies? The answer: they're there, but without massive marketing budgets behind them, how many people are actively seeking them out?

5. Trailers


The depressing thing about complaining about trailers is that we've all been doing it for years, and the problem gets worse. Once upon a time, we were grumbling about a single trailer for a film, that happened to spoil too much of it (prime offender: comedies). Now? Why spoil a film with one trailer, when you can do it with lots.

6. Special effects for the sake of special effects


We found plenty of things to admire in Man Of Steel, but like many critics and cinemagoers, we found ourselves slightly exhausted by its protracted scenes of city-wide destruction. It's a recent example of a film where its technical brilliance outstrips its restraint - a film that never settled for one scene of a collapsing skyscraper when it could easily afford to put in five.

7. An unwillingness to end a story

It was Kevin Smith's interview with Bruce Willis on the Die Hard 4.0 DVD (they're not such good pals now, we understand) that cemented this. Because until you get to the final chapter of a franchise, you're continually dealing with mid-story, as Smith quizzed Willis about. That in itself isn't a problem, but it does mean that there's a reluctance to damage characters, or to close off avenues, for fear of restricting future business possibilities. And yet endings are good: just look at the clamour building up to the Breaking Bad ending on television, knowing that a rich and wonderful story is heading to a final moment

8. Editing isn't ruthless enough

Digital filmmaking has brought in many tangible advantages. It's brought down the barriers for new filmmakers in particular, as you don't need to max out every credit card going or pretend you like film school just to get anywhere near the equipment and people you need to get a film together. Furthermore, directors can check a shot on the spot, thanks to a bank of monitors that adorn any half decent film set. There's no waiting to check the right piece of 35mm footage: it's all instant.

9. Too much reverence

Focus groups, expensive bits of research and a general paranoia amongst aforementioned posh people in Hollywood inevitably fosters a feeling of staying close to things that have worked before. In extreme cases, that's why you get films that aren't even remakes weaving themselves as closely as possible to films in a franchise that have worked before (Star Trek Into Darkness again being a prime example there).

10. The audience


Even though audiences can be shaped via good marketing, and restriction of choice, ultimately the films that end up in big cinemas are the ones that people are more likely to see. Thus, the reason why a big new Transformers sequel is made, and a potentially more interesting original film isn’t, is that more of us are likely to see the former. More than that, more of us are likely to pick up the DVDs, buy the merchandise, and, ultimately, buy a ticket at the cinema.

Read the complete article: http://www.denofgeek.com