ET 4: Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will

          DW Griffith and Leni Riefenstahl were such amazing directors that changed the course of history and future of film. Birth of a Nation was THE film that started all films, a big budgeted movie that not only served as a platform for all film makers but also in terms of the technology used and Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl which showed, in my view, wonderful craftsmanship through how she angled the camera and how the whole thing was put together- from the stadium built to the rallies that occurred.

         As stated, Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are two known propaganda movies, each in it’s own way. If we look at it through a Realism perspective, the excerpts from Birth of a Nation basically showed a story of how the white minority was helpless in the hands of the crazy black people, and the heroes- The Ku Klux Klan came just in time to rescue them. This of course is the description in its simplest manner, but DW Griffith depicted it in a way that glorified the KKK, through music and the way he edited the sequence to be like. Even through the music, one can feel the glorification; he used the type of music that stirred people’s emotions, music that had a tempo as Rey said, the type of music in one of those superhero movies. Not only that, he made it more powerful and strong through the images he shot, such as the helpless woman being tied up by the black people, and the helpless white family looking terrified as the blacks started attacking, and then came the image of  a parade of KKK heroes coming in on horses to save the day. In Triumph of the Will, the movie was basically about Hitler and how he was deemed a God by all the citizens and it was said that this movie was a documentary when in actual fact it wasn’t. The first 5 minutes of the film, showed the non diagetic elements such as when the film occurred, which was after WW1 and I did some research on Germany after WW1, and it helped me understand the meaning of the film to a certain extent. The Germans were forced to bear the humongous cost of the war and because of that, the people of Germany were impoverished, and not only did the economy crumble, but more importantly the spirit of the people crumbled as well. Coming to think of it, Hitler may have thought that by communism and by finding someone to blame- Jews, it would have united the people of Germany. The film began with him descending from the clouds, giving the symbolization of God. We get a birds eye view of the city of  Nuremberg and clouds, and the aeroplane, and then as he landed, we saw the swarm of hundreds of people waiting for him, stretching out their hands towards him as if they had just witnessed their Saviour. The music that accompanied the entire sequence was soothing, calming, like an orchestra. In my view, the whole sequence probably signified the beginning of a revolution, coming straight from the very man who started it all. Speaking of the structure of the film, one part of Birth of a Nation that I remember so clearly, was the sequence where there was cross cutting multiple times- showing the woman being tied up- then the KKK riding on the horses, and again and again repeatedly gave this effect of how they were about to save them from danger. The structure I found interesting in Triumph of the Will, was when Hitler was giving his empowering speech, and there were so many reaction shots shown repeatedly, first at Hitler, then at the generals and people around him and it continues in that pattern.

            When we talk about the two films being melodramatic, it bears such truth in it. In a way, it feels like I’m watching the typical superhero vs villain movie. Right at the beginning, we can see who are the good and who are the bad ones.  I noticed that in Birth of a Nation, DW Griffith used a lot of words/phrases to describe the blacks and the whites such as crazed negros, and helpless whites. That in itself already depicts some sort of melodramatic effect on the audience watching. Even the scenes where they showed the KKK coming on their horses, that was the CLEAREST sign of who was depicted as the good guy and who the bad. In sequences where the blacks were stopping the whites from voting and everytime they showed this phrase –THE WHTE MINORITIES-, and not forgetting the sequence where the blacks were uncivilized during an important meeting by eating, drinking, taking off their shoes, all of this came off as elements needed to create the melodramatic effect. In Triumph of the Will, it was shown in another way, as the director never showed anyone else besides Hitler, and those who supported him. She never showed the Jews, or someone besides the Aryans or anyone that was unhappy and against the whole Nazi movement. So, in a way, the villain in my perspective, is everyone who was against Hitler, and that Hitler was the savior.

       Propaganda! I must say that I have never viewed any film that has been so obviously used as a tool of propaganda before, that, or I’ve never actually analyzed and thought about what I was watching before. I actually have a lot to say about Birth of a Nation but I’ll be cutting it short;

So much was done in order to change and influence the mindsets of the audience and I found it pretty hypocritical for DW Griffith to state that everything was historically true when he changed a huge portion into something so obviously fake. The way he depicted black people in such a manner, how he showed them to be greedy, rude, disgusting and of lower social class to a certain extent is appalling. Political impact through the actions of how the blacks would stop the whites from voting could change the perception of the audience to be against the blacks from ever voting, and sequences such as when interracial marriages were legalized, the camera shot so many reaction shots that gave such bad impressions to the black people- such as the terrified looks of the whites and the somewhat ‘horny’ looks on the black men. This impacts society in a way that people go against and are prejudiced against any marriage out of race, thus giving birth to racism. There was a scene where the words ‘AN INSPIRATION’ came up and this was when the founder of the Ku Klux Klan noticed black children being afraid of ghosts and decided to form the KKK. Children were depicted as monsters and bullies and this also acts as an element of propaganda, fuelling racism to its highest. In Triumph of the Will, I would say that the sequence that screamed propaganda was the part where Hitler gave his speech in front of hundreds of people. It was a powerful speech, and he gave such energy and it was as if he was instructing the people instead of giving a speech. There were times where the camera shot him from below(low angle shot) and he seemed bigger and there were times where it shot him from the point of view of the audience and even at eye level.  Reaction shots of people nodding, agreeing also acted as a way of showing the political and social agreement of all the people towards Hitler’s plan.

       Overall, these were two AMAZING shows and caught my attention throughout the film. 

ET 3: Charlie and Buster

         Everybody loves comedy, in this time, be it Adam Sandler or even Rowan Atkinson, everyone as an audience wants to be entertained and comedians have solidified their position as one of the major sources of entertainment. People watch comedy mainly to laugh- well that’s me, or even to cry- due to excessive laughing and just to provide temporary escape from the world. For me personally, I don’t go for comedies because I want to watch a character lose their dignity or suffer, I go because I want to laugh, laughter causes the body to produce endorphins and that’s what makes people happy, you just somehow get a more positive outlook on life after you laugh and when life sucks, you need that extra push to make you laugh, or even smile. Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton in my opinion, are the pioneers of comedy, the first, such as Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, one can say that Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton were the first to bring laughs? No? they both carried with them a persona, an image which became something that identified them, something that just screamed their name every time your saw it- like their clothes etc.

        Mr Charlie Chaplin! One of the most famous from the silent era- the only one I’ve heard about before film class. I’m going to be completely honest though, I didn’t find him extremely funny, I mean he was indeed funny, but not THAT hilarious. I must say he carried this persona, one that stood out because it was different, starting from his facial expressions; In order to make people laugh without any dialogue whatsoever, he managed to have so much emotion and personality shining through his face, whenever he was scared- such as the scene in ‘the Cure’ where he was witnessing the muscular man giving massages was extremely funny, I loved that part. There was just so much being said just by looking at his face, and his whole persona came as a package, from the way he walked, which was in this dopey sort of way, where one of his legs just move far apart from each other, this compared to the way Buster Keaton walks, where he puts his legs relatively closer together.

   If I could compare one comedic persona from this time to these two legends, I would say Rowan Atkinson reminds me so much of them. He carries the persona of Mr Bean, right up to the way he dresses and the way he moves. As I watched the films, and other clips from youtube, I noticed that these comedians have pretty much similar ways of facing challenging situations, they just pick themselves up. And for me, that’s what makes it funny, it’s seeing how farce- where they get inflicted by physical pain and still get up and move normally. Again, it just keeps reminding me of Mr Bean and how his stupidity just makes people laugh. Charlie chaplin somehow gives me the personification of someone who is clumsy, you can see it by how he walks and how his hands are positioned outwards in air as he spins around and around looking for his way, like during the swirling door scene, or when he fell into the well filled with the magic water. Buster Keaton on the other hand, gives me the impression of a hero! I say this because, in the General, he lands himself in a position where it just fits, for example- he landed himself in the home of the enemy who captured his girlfriend and managed to save her, and in terms of how he makes people laugh, it is by 'succeeding by accident'. I find that entertaining. Even in the clip above, the hat scene in the carriage was funny. I say this because, comedians in the General and in Chaplin films alike tend to make a fool of themselves and on an actor’s standpoint, he completely takes on a persona and confidently makes a fool of himself. I guess people like to watch other people being unafraid of sometimes losing their dignity.

         I’m a girl, and being female, I love all things romantic. Once again, I can't help but to mention Mr Bean whenever I think of Charlie chaplin and buster keaton, they’re just so much alike. Watching the Cure, Charlie Chaplin shows females his side of being a gentlemen, doing things for a lady- like how he only drank the yucky water mainly due to her asking him to. The way he moves and the expression on his face tells a lot,such as his embarrassment, his shyness, his interest, he shows it incredibly through his body movements and facial expression. Buster Keaton’s love for his woman was incredibly cute to say the least, he even kept a picture of her in his train!!! The way he moves when he goes to her house, or ; OH MY FAVOURITE PART was when he sat on the train and wanted to cuddle with her but found it difficult as the soldiers kept coming in and out. Then, when he went to the opposite side to kiss her while using the other hand to salute -yes, it was extremely funny. they deal with things in a different way that other, normal people would. They provide this funny medium of imagination for the audience to think outside the box when coming up with a solution to their problems. 

       They are alike in terms of how themselves as actors, take on a persona that is so different from who they are in reality and bring life to it. For both of them, it can be seen clearly through The cure and The General, that they both practiced and rehearsed tremendously and they both portrayed a different persona in full- right from the way they looked, moved and expressed. They both dealt with things in a jovial manner or rather not jovial- more of a optimistic manner, as you rarely see them sad. One similarity that I noticed is that whenever they’re doing something, at times they look as if they’re doing it for their own satisfaction, in Malay we call it ‘syok sendiri’ basically means, entertaining yourself and by entertaining themselves, they are in turn entertaining those watching them. I would say they’re different in how their shows are made, The General was so much longer compared to The Cure and had more of a broader storyline.

    I was more interested in watching Charlie Chaplin actually for various reasons. To a certain extent, I personally feel that good comedy should only be for a short time, the show should be structured in a way that it wouldn’t be too long and neither would it be too short. For me, I was wide awake during Charlie Chaplin but as the Buster Keaton film went on, I lost my interest during certain parts. I felt that Charlie Chaplin was stronger in terms of how he made sure that whatever he felt was clearly shown just by looking at his face. I thought that the way Chaplin dressed and how he moved was much funnier compared to Buster Keaton as well.


    I googled a few of Chaplin's famous quotes and fell in love with on of them almost instantly;


"Failure is unimportant. it takes courage to make a fool of yourself'- Charlie Chaplin


i just feel related to this quote because like I said in the beginning, people watch comedy because it's nice to finally see someone unafraid of being laughed at, someone who doesn't care about what other people think and someone who can also laugh at himself. I guess, this somehow gives people hope and courage to be themselves 

Class; 18th May

We watched 2 films in class today,

a.  The Great Train Robbery

b.   Birth of a Nation

I’m beginning to feel that I’ve not really been thinking when I watch a movie, whenever I’m in class and Rey points out and asks all these questions about the film, I began to notice how much I miss out on when I watch a film and when I actually start noticing these things, I realize I’ve been learning a lot even though it’s only been the first few classes of the semester.

Rey pointed out stuff that had to do with Genre and the first division of genre;

Comedy                                                                                  Tragedy

Between the two films that we watched; I would have to say that I paid more attention and was more interested in Birth Of a Nation. The Birth of a Nation was the show that started cinema back then, as DW Griffith attempted and used techniques that have never been used before and compared to the other films shown in class from back then, this film shows a newer, more modern and sophisticated way of filming. As Rey said, the director paid a lot of attention into making sure that it was historically relevant, and reproduced a lot of the backdrops and scenes. I personally thought that it was contradictory to a certain extent because if he was so particular about making sure that everything was historically correct, all the scenes and how he depicted the black people was the total opposite of what actually happened, and people know that, so obviously it came out extremely racist. He totally switched the roles of the white and blacks, ‘white minorities?’ -made not sense to me because if I’m correct, the blacks were the slaves at that time and THEY were the minorities. When I read the review by James Agee, where he said something about the director understanding the blacks and that’s why he depicted them in that way- feet on the tables, eating and drinking during meetings, and even the subtle but strong facial expressions, I was wondering to myself on how can he say that the director understood them? does that mean he understood them as savages? or the lower class? I agreed more with what Jane Addams had to say and since DW Griffith was a southerner and practiced slavery, I would assume that he was absolutely fine in the whole idea of slavery. Even though it was a great piece of art, I don’t think it should have been made with such a strong racist incline. For me, that was probably one of the few things that stuck in my mind from the entire film and it kind of destroys part of it’s beauty (this is similar to my comment on Rey’s blog as I felt that it said exactly what I felt when watching and this exact explanation was enough)

I must say that there were parts of the film that made me bored, but I really sat up and paid attention to the film at parts such as when the film started to incline towards racism and when Lincoln was shot. 

Class; 16th May

Class was interesting today, we got to watch the two films once again but this time, we analysed it instead of merely watching. It was something new to me because I've never tried to look at a film critically in that way before. I came to know that when you really pay attention and look at the different aspects of how it's shot and look at the film as one whole, one can see the beauty of the story and why the plot was in the way that it was. I came to appreciate "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge' much more than I did during the first time I watched it. I noticed a whole lot of things as well, and I could somehow picture the vision that the director had when he was making the film, it was very interesting. For example, when the main character was running and running and running, if you look at my post before this, I honestly thought that repetitiveness in the film made it incredibly boring but right now, I began to see the purpose in the scenes and how important it was to create that effect of a dream for the audience. As for the film, 'Night and Fog', I wasn't looking forward to Rey playing the film again, and I was glad that he didn't. I don't think I could have sat through the film again. 

I did feel brain drained during class though, it was something different because I could answer some of the questions but there were also questions that left me dumb founded, I had no answer and I felt stressed out. My shoulder's ached and well, I just couldn't think at times. Overall, I think the class was amazingly interesting and it did show me a different perspective of watching films. 

ET 2: Yourself as Audience

Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge

          Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge is a French film set in the 1950s and was adapted from an American story by  Ambrose Bierce.  Unlike the other films that I have been exposed to, this is the first black and white film that I have watched, and I must say that it was a rather interesting film and definitely not something that I expected it to be. Nonetheless, it showed me a side of cinema that I probably would have been ignorant to see before this. This film affected me in various ways, especially through the emotions and thoughts that stirred inside me throughout the film. I’ve heard of the Twilight Zone series and I must say that the intro of the whole thing- which carried the non -diagetic elements played a very important role in setting the overall emotions of the audience. I, personally felt scared, as if I was about to watch a horror movie because honestly I had no idea what the genre of the film was and the intro was enough to make me feel all tensed up. I was actually EXPECTING some monster to pop up in the beginning of the film.

           The beginning managed to capture my attention though, starting with the scene before the hanging. I mean, it was the beginning of the film and therefore I paid close attention, I was squinting my eyes while watching actually and wondering why this guy was standing on the plank. Reminded me of those planks on pirate ships. When the guards started to put the rope around his neck , it became clear that an execution was about to be carried out and I felt so uncomfortable. I personally don’t like watching people get killed or executed in this case, and I was very fidgety, moving my body around . If you’re talking about a physical manifestation of any emotion, it would have occurred right at the beginning where the soldier fired a gun shot. My whole body sort of jolted off my chair for a second, and my heart was pumping really hard.  I did get bored in the beginning as well, I mean, the attention to detail of every aspect of the situation from the facial expression of the man about to be executed to the attention to his whole surroundings was very well thought of but for me, it was too elaborate and I got pretty bored after a while. I began to look around at everyone else. I looked at the ceiling and started rubbing my nose. I have this habit of rubbing my nose when I’m bored. When he had his flashback of his memory of his wife and family, I did feel slightly sad, but not sad enough to want to cry and I knew he had a family that he was going to leave, which then followed by his tears.

       

             My reaction changed after the gunshot and as he fell into the water. I began to pay a lot of attention and I still remember my exact thoughts at that moment when he fell in and started to untie himself. I was wondering how on earth he could have fallen into the water in the first place because he was supposed to be hanged, and the main point of the rope around his neck was for him to remain hanging and not fall into the water, so that was weird to me.  Then, as he started escaping and swimming and swimming and continued swimming, my emotions changed from being tensed up to bored again. There was just too much of the same thing going on and on and I do understand that it was done to create suspense but I may have felt more interested if it was in colour instead of black and white but through this film, I’ve seen a different side of film that can affect me differently even by the small difference in colour. There was a scene when the officer was speaking loudly and I wasn’t sure whether it was supposed to be in slow motion but his voice came out weird to me. He sounded like an alien and I was going to laugh, at first I noticed that my eyes opened wider than usual and my facial expression probably looked pretty hilarious. When he got himself on shore and started laughing and rolling around in the sand, I REALLY wanted to laugh out loud, I just found it so extremely funny and I did let loose a few small giggles in class. I then realized that somehow no one else was laughing, so I tried my best to tighten my lips together and not make a sound. Till now, I still find it extremely funny. I thought the man was crazy. Then he started running, and once again, I felt bored and started looking around again, my body was uncomfortable so I bent forward and rested my head on both my hands. He just continued running, but I must admit that the non diagetic elements such as the drumming as the background music which accompanied him as he ran helped cause that excitement in the audience and I could feel my heart beat in accordance with the drum beats. When he FINALLY reached this huge house, I was silently thanking God that all the running stopped, yes, I was quite bored.  The first thought that came into my mind as he reached this huge gate and white house was that he encountered a haunted house in the middle of nowhere. I just expected something like that to happened because of the whole Rod Serling introduction that just gave me the impression that it was going to be an eerie, horror movie. I have to admit though, I felt rather disappointed that it wasn’t a horror movie. When he saw his wife and the whole running in slow motion into her arms moment got me bored again, I was waiting for him to finally reach her because it seemed to take forever.  When he reached her and touched her, and you could hear the snap sound, I just went “WOW’. I think my heart stopped beating when he dropped down from the plank and was hanged. I remember my eyes were so wide opened, and I cant even remember whether I was breathing during those few seconds. My jaw dropped open, and I stared at the screen, stuck in my position. I felt so disturbed. I remember looking at Jon and he looked as freaked out as I was. To me, this was THE most powerful change of my emotions throughout the entire film.

             At the end of the film, all I felt was disturbed. The only part of the film that kept replaying itself in my mind was the ending. It’s like the feeling I got when I watched Inception, only this was ten times more disturbing because I realized that the whole thing about him running and escaping was just a figment of his imagination and this, although wasn’t real, but it IS something that can happen in reality and for humans in general, we always wonder what goes on in a persons mind before we die, what we see right before we die, and to see that on screen in such a way, I still feel disturbed. It’s like a mixture of feeling weirded out and disturbed. Due to being in a class in ADP while watching this film, I made sure that my emotions were kept controlled to a certain extent, for example, when I really wanted to laugh, I didn’t because firstly I didn’t want to be disturbing the class and secondly, was due to the fact that nobody was laughing and I didn’t want to seem crazy. It would have definitely been different if I was watching it by myself or outside the confinement of the classroom . I would have laughed out loud when I felt like it, I would have yawned and been more expressive when I felt bored and I would have been talking a lot throughout the show. Up till now, the one thing I still remember vividly was the rolling around in the sand and the ending. I think the reason I remember both of these events so clearly is because it stirred my emotions much more compared to the rest of the film. One part made me want to laugh so bad and the other which still sends shivers down my spine.