The Prestige- What is the significance of this film and it relationship to others?

    Magic constantly surrounds us at the movies. This magic from CGI technology and advanced editing has changed how we view films today. The digital age of film creating has quickly surpassed the old, classic films from more than 50 years ago.

    This new type of magic is clearly visible in The Prestige, a film about the rivalry of two magicians and their quest for the perfect magic trick. In this film, magic is witnessed not only in the plot of the movie, but also in the camera angles, lighting and mise-en-scene. This film embodies the new technology that has been integrating into recent movies. After The Prestige was shown in 2006, most films have incorporated computer technology into action scenes, utilized special effects to highlight important features of the movie, and created images of imaginary worlds to trick the audience’s eyes into almost believing what they are viewing on the silver screen is reality. This is done in the same way that a magic show fools their audience, making their slight of hand so unnoticeable that the audience sometimes mistakes the trick for actually happening.

    Using the Formalist Criticism to evaluate The Prestige, I am drawn to the opening scene of the movie. Two scenes are intertwined into one another to depict two separate disappearing acts and shows the audience the two sides to magic, the beauty in a simple trick and the deadliness when the trick goes wrong.

    The technology in this scene is centered on the bolts of electricity that appear to be going through one of the magicians. First, the camera is positioned as if we are part of the audience watching both magic tricks from their point of view. This makes us focus on the film and directs our attention to the magicians in each scene. The lighting also shifts our focus to the magicians since they are in a brighter light than the rest of the people in the scene. Once the magician steps into the electrical, open chamber, the audience looks worried about his condition and confused on how the magician appears to still be alive with volts of power going through his body. This affect looks so real and would have been impossible to master without the aid from CGI technology.

    This magic show demonstrates the magic that every film is capable of when incorporating computer technology into films. Without this magic, a film would be too ordinary to capture its audience’s attention.

Outline for Essay 1- Formalist or Ideological Theory?

Main Argument:
In the 1960s, two very different approaches to film theory evolved. In the United States, Ideological Film Theory was mainly used, by focusing on the overall film in its entirety and by comparing it to issues in the real world. The British utilized the Formalist Approach by viewing films one scene or shot at a time and analyzing the film’s effects, such as lighting, editing, and camera angles, to describe how this scene would relate to the rest of the film. By looking inward first, then towards the overall picture, the Formalist Theory to me this is the most effective way to study film.


Claim 1:
In Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, the scene where Norman and Marion eat dinner and talk depicts a strong mise-en-scene and decoupage in the camera placement and props, such as the birds in the scene. These attribute to the Formalist Theory and help us analyze the small scenes of the film first.
Example: The camera looks up at Norman as we look up to a bird that is sitting or soaring above us, while when focused on Marion, the camera is directly in front of her with no angle at all.

Support: An article analyzing mise-en-scene and Psycho

Claim 2:
There are many instances of repetition in this scene, which is common in the Formalist Approach.
Example: As Norman keeps mentioning his work with birds, we begin to see a correlation with how he perceives Marion. At one point he states that she eats like a bird.

Support: Analysis of Psycho

Claim 3:
In all Formalist Approaches, there lies a deeper meaning to the film’s effects and sends the audience clues and hints for the rest of the movie.
Example: The way in which Norman talks about how everyone goes insane at some point in their lives and how people would perceive his mother in an insane institution gives the insight that Norman had lost his mind and drifted away from reality before this scene

Support: Perkins’ Film as Film and Wood’s article
　
　

The Grapes of Wrath

Pick one moment from the film adaptation and describe how it either departs from or remains faithful to Steinbeck's novel. Is this moment "cinematic," and, if so, does it make Ford & Toland auteurs?

I had read Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath in high school, but never had the opportunity to watch this classic book come to life on the silver screen in Ford and Toland’s film adaptation. I was excited to learn that I would finally have my chance at seeing this movie as one of our film presentations. The film to me was true overall to both the letter and the spirit of the book.

One scene in the film that was very powerful and stood out from the rest was when the Joad family was driving into the transient camp in California. Up to this point, the scenes presented to us, the audience, were of the characters, of their past recollections, and from their viewpoints. In this scene, the audience is shown the viewpoint from the front of the Joads’ truck. As their vehicle slowly curves throughout the camp, we see the faces of the other families that have taken the same harsh journey after they either were kicked off of the land that they had lived on their whole lives or had lost their business because of the forced migration. From the position of the camera, the broken, uninviting, sickly faces of the fellow campers seem to be looking up and over into the vehicle. This effect makes the audience feel as though they were also in the car, as another member of the Joad family, or sitting on top of the car, watching the people as the Joads past by them.

This scene remains faithful to the novel in that it shows the poor conditions of the camp and of its residents. Where this depiction departs from Steinbeck’s vision is that it secludes the Joad family from the others and steers the film into a story about a singular family unit instead of mankind as a whole. This moment is very “cinematic” since only a film could capture this as well as the feeling of despair that the audience is given when shown the other families’ faces at this distantly different angle. I believe that this moment shows that Ford and Toland are auteurs since not only did they perfect the technique of the way they captured the scene and add their own personal style by creating a different viewpoint with the camera, but they also brought a deeper meaning of this scene to the surface, depicting all of the anguish and distrust the campers had developed throughout their individual journeys.

　

Most critics today dismiss auteur theory for various reasons. Do you believe it is a valid area of study in film studies? Why or why not?

The auteur theory is when a body of work shows that the director’s best films have the same degree of technique, personal style, and, most importantly, interior meaning. The director has to use decoupage to put together the film in a cohesive way while still maintaining their attitude towards the piece. After learning about the auteur theory in class, I feel that it is a valid area of film study. This theory makes students view films in a different way, while interpreting and evaluating a movie based on the director’s work. I can now view a film and decide whether the director is just a technician, developing a certain technique for the creation of the movie, a stylist, adding their personal touches in the scenes, or an auteur, meaning author, adding these traits with a specific, interior meaning to the film as a whole.

Masculin, Feminin

When heading out to see a movie with my friends, I am usually entertained by the faraway lands, the dramatic and fantastic fight scenes, or the unrealistic, but perfect love stories that unfold in front of me on the silver screen. Because of this traditional way of filming, I expect to view a movie like I would read a book, discovering another world but never feeling as if I am an active character in it.

This all changed when I saw Godard’s 1966 film, Masculin, Feminin. Godard took many risks and broke away from the traditional filming method in this movie. This film, unlike others, made me feel as though I was another character, a silent contributor, moving through the movie along with the actors. The angles and viewpoints gave me the sensation that I, as the camera, was peering into rooms where I could overhear the conversations between Paul and Madeline.

I began to feel like this whenever the camera filmed only one character at a time in an interview style, where the person who was speaking was off camera,. The first scene in which this occurred was when Paul followed Madeline into the bathroom. Paul was questioning Madeline about politics, herself, and her interests in him. Because of this documentary feel, I could place myself into the movie and experience their conversations as a friend and observer, seeing their, otherwise, hidden emotions. I watched as Madeline did her makeup and hair, ignoring some of Paul’s questions, becoming embarrassed by the more personal ones, and slyly lying to him about others. The camera then switched to Paul as Madeline spoke and showed that he looked weak and unconfident around her.

These images are usually out of sight in other movies since those films focus more on the person speaking and not on their reactions as they listen to others. In doing this, Godard shows that film should be focused on letting the viewers become immersed into the story and listen in as another character would, not viewing the movie from an outsider’s perspective. I was able to feel like I was walking around in the film because the camera became my eyes, letting me stare into the lives of these characters.

Godard also created many moments throughout the film where the characters and other people looked directly into the camera lens. Godard did this intentionally in order to let the audience believe that they were in the middle of moments that were supposed to be private among the characters.

Because of this new technique of turning the viewer into an “active” character, Godard centered the film around the viewpoint of the audience. Maybe other films of today will begin using this approach to filmmaking to engage the audience more and break away from tradition.