Modern Silent Film Questions

Questions for blog posting:
1) What differences do you see in traditional silent films and films of today?

Traditional silent films generally do not have any sound coming from the movie at all other than music, but today's films had some start.
2) Which do you prefer?

I like both for different reasons.  I think that modern films, such as Momentos and Nuit Blanchet are really cool with their newer technology, and I can relate to them more, but I also love the traditional silent films such as Charlie Chaplin.  I think that because I'm used to such faster paced movies, I prefer watching modern silent films.
3) How will you use these differences in your own work?

I originally thought that I wanted to make a traditional silent film, but after watching these films, I'm going to think about it more and make a better decision of what I should choose.

Georges Melies

Answer the following questions in a blog post:
1) What did you notice/learn about Melies' style?
Melies' style is very different and strange, which makes it really cool.  He likes to have supernatural characters and magic.
2) Were there consistent elements in his films? What were they?
One really consistent element was his use of camera tricks, or special effects.  Melies really knew how to use the camera to make things look magical, which was especially impressive for the time he was making films in.
3) Did you enjoy his films? Which ones? Why?
Yes, I really enjoyed how creative and clever all of his films are.  Everything that happens is totally unexpected.  I specifically enjoyed The One Man Band - 1900  and The Prolific Magical Egg - 1902.  Both of those films had really cool effects and I imagine that seeing those when they originally came out was really amazing.
4) What will you take away with you from watching these films?
I'm really impressed with how well Melies used the camera and could have such cool effects, especially because film was so new.  I will take away a big appreciation Melies' innovation and creativity.

Hoosiers Film Review

Hoosiers, starring Gene Hackman, is the story of the underdog team, the Hickory Huskies, in their journey to the state championship basketball game in Indiana.  Shot in 1986, the true events of the film take place in 1952.  After the small farm town of Hickory, Indiana loses it's basketball coach, Coach Norman Dale enters the scene in an effort to improve the team's technical skills, and truly teach the boys how to play basketball.  Coach Dale makes some controversial decisions, such as bringing the town drunk, Shooter, onto the coaching staff.  The stubborn town is not keen for change, and with less success than anticipated, thanks in large part to the missing star of the team, Jimmy, Coach Dale is put up for review for the town council.  Jimmy saves Coach Dale's job as he promises to play, but only if Coach stays.  With Jimmy back on the team, and Coach Dale's efforts finally paying off, the Hickory Huskies suddenly become wildly successful and progress towards the state championship.

This is not just a story of a basketball team, but it includes the romance of Coach Dale and Ms. Fleener, Jimmy's care taker and a teacher at the school.  It also tells the story of Shooter, who rises up from his poor habits as the town drunk to help coach the team, and fix his relationship with his son.  As the preacher alludes in the pre game pep talk before the state championship, this is the story of David and Goliath, which gives us hope that the underdog always has a chance.

Because the film was shot in the 80's, it is not quite as artistically made as one made today, but the film angles and lighting is very good.  Additionally, the basketball was staged very well, and captured well on screen with much of it in slow motion so we can see what's really going on.

Overall, I absolutely enjoyed the film.  It was a very inspirational story, and I would recommend it to anyone who likes sports movies, or the classic "underdog" films.  It can certainly be enjoyed by people of all ages, and is worth a watch.

The Artist Critique

1) Describe the film.
The Artist is a black and white silent film set in the late 1920's and 1930's.  It is the story of a silent film star, George Valentin, who goes from being on top of Hollywood to being in bankruptcy.  While he's on top, George meets Peppy Miller, a woman who goes from being a nobody to rising to the top as "talkies" become the new big thing.  The two obviously have a connection from the time they meet, and as George crashes and burns (literally), Peppy helps lift him back up as the two discover the next big thing of being a tap dancing duo.
2) How is the story driven?  By the characters or plot?
The story is driven by both characters and plot.  Because the film was silent, the main focus was simply on their ability to act with their facial expressions and body language.  George and Peppy were extremely lovable characters without even having to speak.  In that way, the story was character driven; however, it was also the plot of their story that drove the film.  I was constantly wondering when George and Peppy would get together and how their story would play out.  Additionally, the story took a turn as George entered a depression.  I enjoyed the movie not only because it had great plot, but also because I loved the characters.
3) Talk about the cinematography.  How was the use of lighting, acting, camera angles scene development used to help enhance the film?
Filming the movie in black and white was very effective.  I especially enjoyed the beginning when the point of view switched between people watching a film, and George behind the screen, and actually seeing the film.  That really created a good idea of what watching a film in the late 1920's was like.  The film looked old fashioned while at the same time using modern technology and seeming modern in that way.
4) What was you favorite scene from the film?  Why? Describe the scene as well as how it was shot.
My favorite scenes were when Peppy first comes to the set of George's movie and they do the tap dancing sequence back and forth.  There is such anticipation for when they will actually see and recognize each other as they are separated by that screen.  Additionally, I love the way the scene when Peppy is racing to George's house and he is contemplating killing himself was shot.  Specifically, I was really impressed with the scene when George has the gun pointed up his mouth, and there is a screen that says BANG!, but then shows that it was actually Peppy crashing the car and rushing into see George.  The fact that that scene was silent made it even more suspenseful.
5) What is the experience of watching a silent film like? How does it relate to watching a "talkie"?
Watching a silent film makes you focus more on the film.  Sometimes when I'm watching a "talkie", I do other things and don't pay attention because I'm "listening" to it (when in reality I'm just not focused on it).  I was surprised at how much I felt like I actually got to know the characters, despite the lack of dialogue.  The experience is similar to watching a "talkie" for that reason: you still love the characters, and follow everything that is going on with them.
6) Would you encourage others to view the film?  Why or why not?
I would definitely encourage others to view The Artist.  I did not think that I would really enjoy watching a silent film because I thought it would be boring, but I was very pleasantly surprised with how much I loved it.  I think it was a great story and it made me appreciate the time period and the simplicity of watching a silent film.