FOR INTERNATIONAL CINEMA ONLY! (All you film historians, keep away!)

CANADIAN WEEK!!!
Hey, you hosers, take to look deeper into the movies we watched from the Great White North, you knobs!  Answer all the questions you see below.  Give me some thoughtful answers, and may the force be with you.


STRANGE BREW (1983)

Well, you know how I feel about this movie.  I gave you my entire life story about why I love it so much.  And, in my mind, as silly as it is, it is secretly brilliant.  But, that's my opinion.  Maybe you hated every second of this, and, it being a re-telling of Shakespeare's Hamlet or not, maybe you thought it was dumb.  So the first question:

• Did you like this movie?  Why or why not (again, I want thoughtful answers here, you rink rats)?
• Did the film follow any of the things the National Film Board of Canada asked films to fulfill?
• What lessons did you learn from this film about life and the world?

LARS AND THE REAL GIRL (2007)

Yes!  This movie is so good!  And, I tell you, a quirky, cute, cathartic movie as unique as this would have a hard time getting made in the U.S. of A., but that's to the National Film Board of Canada, it had the help it needed to come to pass up north.

It is stories like this that we can have the wonderful opportunity of experiencing thanks to the whole wide world of cinema being out there!

Ok, answer the following questions about Lars and the Real Girl:

• Did you like this movie?  Why or why not?
• What was the message of this film, in your opinion?
• Which purpose or purposes of the Canadian Film Board do you think this fulfills?
• How is this film different from typical Hollywood movies?  How is it different?

THE GATE (1987)

"You've got demons."

I love this film.  With all my HEART.  It is a true example of many creative forces working together, most people doing multiple jobs for not a lot of money, to tell a story they all care about.  This movie is a true gem.  It's a horror movie for children, thus the happy ending and children protagonists, but one that has the "guts" (pun intended) to put some seriously scary stuff in.  One that respects the fact that children can handle fear, that they are braver than adults often give them credit for.  Plus, it makes for a horror film that you can still love every bit of as an adult (I'm going to be watching this one as a growed-up person with my own kiddos one day, that's for darn sure).  I don't think scary movies made for kids have the same bravado anymore. (Do they even make scary movies for children anymore?)

• What did you think of The Gate?  
• And, how does this Canadian horror film differ from Hollywood horror films?  How is it similar?

Nosferatu (1922)

I hope Nosferatu was a special German Expressionist visceral treat for you! I am curious to know what you thought about the film, its German Expressionist style, and the music used. The cut of the film we watched in class features a score by Brandon Arnold, a film instructor who used to teach at our school. I think it is interesting how he used very modern music (relative to 1922) to add mood to a film that was made so long ago.

Some people feel like these kind of scores are an insult to the original silent film because they do not feature music that existed then. I personally disagree because the original films did not have scores at this time. I don't have a problem with people today mixing their art with the art of the original film to create a new experience for the audience. I think that's pretty cool. But you might feel otherwise and will have the chance to articulate such feelings below.

Now that you've seen Nosferatu, you might start noticing homages to this film in modern media. For example, this.

When you comment below on Nosferatu, be sure to write a full three paragraphs and to follow these instructions:

1) Answer both of the of the following questions:

• What aspects of German Expressionism did you see in this movie? Please provide three concrete examples from the film to back up your point.
• Did you or did you not enjoy this film? Why?

Brandon Arnold—former EHHS teacher and the man who
arranged the score of the cut you watched.
Look at those eyes and creepy smile. Of course he'd score
a German Expressionist vampire movie.

2) Answer two of the following questions:

• Do you think this movie was scary or creepy? Why or why not? Do you think it would have been scary or creepy for its original audience? Why or why not?
• Did you like Brandon Arnold's score for the film? Why or why not?
• What did you make of the acting style of this film? Did you like it or not like it? Why?
• If you were going to show this film to one of your friends, what would you tell them ahead of time to prepare them for it?
• ... or ... respond to a comment someone made above. When you respond, either agree or disagree in a civil and respectful manner. Be sure to back up your opinion with three bits of solid evidence/examples.

First Movie at Home

This assignment is due on Monday, October 20. This assignment is worth twice the number of points as a normal blog comment so be sure to do it and do it on time!

This is what you have to do: pick a movie from the AFI 100 list and then comment about it here. Have fun with this! There are probably titles you saw on the AFI list the first day that caused you to think, "I wonder what that is," or, "I've been meaning check that out." Or maybe there's a film that was mentioned in class or elsewhere that sounded interesting to you. This is your chance to finally see that film and get class points for doing so!

When you comment, be sure to follow these instructions:

• Your comment needs to be a full 3 PARAGRAPHS long.
• Your comment needs to include the name of the film you watched.
• Your comment should answer four of the following questions:

• Did anything we've learned in film history class so far help you appreciate the film more? If so, tell us which thing that we learned helped you and how it helped?
• Do you feel the film you watched is more like an Edison film or more like a Lumiere film? Why?
• Why do you feel the film you watched is on the AFI 100 list? Remember the four criteria the AFI used to make their list.
  
• Were any of the special effects invented by Melies used in the film? If so, state which Melies special effect was used and describe how it was used in one moment of the film.
• Were there any moments of the film that had particularly impressive cinematography, editing, acting, writing, lighting, sound, etc. If so, describe the moment to us and tell us what was so special about the use of the filmic element?
• Would you recommend this film to other members of the class? Why or why not?

EXTRA CREDIT: Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)

A link to the entire movie is here: Sunrise.  You can watch this at home, write a response, and get extra credit!  It'll make up for one missing blog post!

If you visit my (Josh Wagner's) classroom, you will see a poster for this film on the wall. Why? Because I freakin' love it!

When I first saw this movie in film school, it was in a class where we'd watch movies and then talk about them in a small group that was lead by the professor (a man named Dean Duncan who writes the smartsy-pants thoughts in the covers of lots of artsy movie DVDs). When we met for our small group, the first thing the Dean Duncan said was, "Well, Sunrise has already been made. You might as well all go home."

You may haven noticed that Sunrise is actually a pretty simple story. One fellow film student in film school who I knew didn't understand why this film gets so much praise. "It's just a big long date," he said.

But consider this as you think about this movie's plot. Most movie plots follow what is called 3-act structure. 3-act structure says that movies should look something like this:

• Act I: the first quarter to third of the movie (about 20-30 minutes) in which we set up all the characters. This act ends when the inciting incident happens (this is the moment when the main problem the characters face is introduced).
• Act II: the middle third to three-quarters of the movie (about 30-45 minutes) in which the characters try to solve the central problem they're facing. They are unable to successfully solve the problem during this time, often because of some sort of internal weakness.
• Act III: the last quarter to third of the film (about 20-30 minutes) in which the characters "fight" some sort of "final battle" to overcome the big problem they've been facing.

This act structure applies to Sunrise ... but only to the first half of the film! We go through all three acts at about 45 minutes in! That's crazy! Once the characters overcome their relationship problems and "remarry" at the church, Act III is over. The film should be done. But yet it goes on for another 45 minutes! How in the world does that work as a story?! But yet it does for most audiences. That's pretty cool.

Now I want to hear what all of you think about Sunrise. Remember, three full paragraphs that follow these instructions:

1) Answer both of the of the following questions:

• What aspects of high silent cinema did you see in this movie? Please provide three concrete examples from the film to back up your point.
• Did you or did you not enjoy this film? Why?

2) Answer two of the following questions:

• Did any shots stand out to you as particularly amazing? If so, describe them and tell us why you thought they were amazing.
• Earlier in this post, I wrote about the strange story structure of this film. Why do you think the story structure works in spite of the fact that the film has gone through all three acts at the mid-point.
• What did you make of the acting style of this film? Did you like it or not like it? Why?
• If you were going to show this film to one of your friends, what you tell them ahead of time to prepare them for it?

City Lights (1931)

Charlie Chaplin's City Lights is an amazing thing if for no other reason than that it was a silent film made after sound had come about! All the other filmmakers in Hollywood were forced to convert to sound or lose their jobs (because no one wanted to see silent films anymore) except for Charlie.

For some reason, people kept going to see Charlie Chaplin's films even though they were still made as silent films. They'd see a poster like the one to the left and say, "Look! A new Charlie Chaplin film. Let's go see it!" They didn't care that it was silent because it was made by Chaplin.

Based on the degree of laughter I heard in class when we watched this, it seemed that many of you liked this film as much as its audiences did when it was released. And that's a great thing. And now, it is time to comment on the film. When you do so, remember to write 3 full paragraphs and follow these instructions:

1) Answer BOTH of the following questions:

• What moments of the film were indicative of Charlie Chaplin's filmmaker style?
• At this point, which of the three great silent comedians is your favorite: Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, or Charlie Chaplin? Why?

2) Answer TWO of the following questions:

• Charlie Chaplin hated sound films (talkies). He just wanted music and that is all. He didn't want any talking. The studios kept pressuring him to add talking but he refused. What did he do in this film to show his dislike for talking in movies?
• Why do you think people kept going to see Chaplin's movies even though they were silent and all the other films at the time were talkies?
• What was your favorite scene in this movie? Why?
• Would you recommend this film to your best friend? Why or why not?
• Which moments of the film do you feel were particularly brilliant in their use of cinematography, editing, writing, or acting? What made the use of that element in that scene so brilliant?
• Did the film raise any questions for you about film history or national history? If so, write your question in your response then write the answer to that question (use the internet to find the answer).
• ...or... respond to someone else's comment in a civil and loving manner. When you do, back up your opinion with at least three examples/logical points.

(Note: if you were not in class to watch City Lights, you can find it on your own and watch it or watch any other feature-length film made by Charlie Chaplin. Then, respond in the comments based on the film you saw. If you watched an alternative film, be sure to tell us in your comments which one it was.)

The General (1926)

The General is often considered to be Buster Keaton's masterpiece. It is the movie that was responsible for me (Josh) falling in love in silent cinema. 

It was interesting watching it with you this time because we watched a version with a score I had never experienced before. The symphonic score used in this version made the film (for me) feel more epic and dramatic than I am used to (the score I've seen it with before emphasized the comedy). This is a good reminder that when watching silent films (which often didn't have scores when they were released because someone usually played the music in the actual theater), it is important to get the version with the right score that emphasizes what you want emphasized.

Also, here are some cool thoughts I found on the internet about this film:

"Comedy, too, could be epic in the silent era, and nowhere is that more evident than in Buster Keaton’s magnum opus, “The General.” The film is so huge, in fact, that Keaton threatens to be lost in the magnitude of its train chases and individual gags that rival the signature accomplishments of Keaton’s earlier features and shorts. One can almost understand, then, how the film baffled critics and audiences alike upon its initial release, a Keaton movie too big for Keaton. Now, it is the delicacy of the thing, how each set piece logically flows and how Keaton coordinates his own and his actors’ movements to fit within a vast, moving canvas, that wins out, and like so much death-defying silent comedy, it is as engaging as a “How did they do that?” feat of impossibility as it is a work of ingenious wit" (http://www.film.com/movies/best-silent-films-on-netflix-instant).

So, when you comment on The General below, remember that you need to write three full paragraphs and follow these instructions:

1) Answer BOTH of the following questions:

• Name at least one moment of The General that is very indicative of Buster Keaton's style.
• Which film do you feel had more dangerous stunts: The General or Safety Last? Explain.

2) Answer TWO of the following questions:

• What did you think of the score of The General that we experienced in class? Did you feel it fit well with the film? Why or why not?
• What was your favorite scene in The General? Explain.
• Like Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton was a very financially successful filmmaker during the silent era. Why do you feel people liked films like The General so much?
• Or ... respond to something someone else's has written in a civil and loving manner. Provide three reasons to back up your response.

(Note: if you were not in class to watch The General, you can watch it on Netflix. If you don't have Netflix and can't find The General anywhere, you can watch an alternative feature-length film made by Buster Keaton. Still answer the questions above but about the alternative film. Be sure to tell us in your comments what film you watched.)

Safety Last (1923)

Well, now we've watched our first feature length film in class! And who better to start off with than everyone's favorite underdog, Harold Lloyd!

Comment below to write your thoughts about the film. When you do so, remember that to get full points, you need to write at least 3 paragraphs and follow all of the instructions below:

Answer BOTH of the following questions:

• What are two moments of this film that you feel are very emblematic of Harold Lloyd's style? Explain.
• Do you feel this film is more like Thomas Edison's films or more like the Lumiere brothers' films? Why?

Now, also answer TWO of the following questions:

• Harold Lloyd was a very successful filmmaker. That means that people must of liked his films. Why do you think people in Harold Lloyd's time liked his movies so much?
• If one of your best friends were going to watch this film, what would you tell your friend ahead of time to help him or her to appreciate it?
• What did you like most about this movie? What did you like least? Why?
• What was your favorite scene from the movie? Why?
• Were there any moments when you found the cinematography, editing, use of "Show, Don't Tell", or storytelling to be particularly well done? If so, describe the moment and explain what about it was awesome!
• Do you strongly agree or disagree with anything anyone has said already in the comments? If so, respond to them in a very civil and loving manner and give three reasons to back up your opinion.

(If you were not in class the day we watched this film then you can find it on your own and watch it or watch any other feature length movie starring Harold Lloyd. If you watch another feature by Harold, tell us in your comments which one it was and follow the instructions above in regards to that feature when you write your post.)