This popular version of the Hollywood legend is complemented by another legendary discourse about the film community that relates Hollywood to the intellectual landscape of the nation and to its cultural hierarchies. This second Hollywood legend is different from the one created by the “fan-zines” and yet is just as fictive. While fan magazines rose-tinted Hollywood into a “Venice without canals,” American literati have crafted a different image of Hollywood marked by desperation and loneliness. In the New Deal era, the attitude of many New York modernist intellectuals toward Hollywood was certainly ambiguous and largely unscathed by what Andreas Huyssen has called the contemporary “anxiety of contamination” between “high and low,” mass culture and
The play Taming of the Shrew is written by Shakespeare, the play is about love and trickery. The movie 10 Things I Hate About You is the modern day interpretation of this play. The reputation of Petruchio and Patrick differ greatly between the play and the movie. Petruchio is known as a rich man that is thought highly of due to his father’s success, which was common in this time period. Patrick is seen as a poor and cruel person, in this time period, people are judged on their appearance.
Even the Joker is just a showcase to advertise, with the brief flashback to part of his backstory only promote that there is a more interesting film in store. As one of the most prominent villains ever know, DC has made him into a literal joke. In Suicide Squad, he is only given bits and pieces of screen time, not even establishing why he is primarily there. Many of the Joker’s scenes were cut due to reasons unknown, but given those scenes were of Harley Quinn and Joker’s abusive relationship, most would consider that DC wanted to make it seem as though they were a seemingly normal couple, but with insanity added to their mental
How the Multimedia Industry Controls Everything “‘Tricky’ Connotations: Wonder Woman as DC's Brand Disruptor” by Charlotte E. Howell’s thesis is “Because this male skewed thinking, comics-based franchises are marketed around this industrial construction of their audience, which creates barriers to producing female-led superhero franchises like Wonder Woman.” (Howell, 142) Howell understands that the media and it’s following always controls, how well the entertainment industry does based on profits. These profits are what makes and breaks a movie, because if the industry feels that a certain movie will not make a big enough profit, it gets cut. Howell does not take into count that the low rates of female-led movies do not just effect superhero films but the industry as a whole. Howell sees how female-led superhero films are mistreated and seen as a joke until Warner Brothers had to step in and take the movie on. It is discussed in the journal that Wonder Woman was part of the feminist movement for woman’s right but my question towards Howell is how come it is only being produced now?
There has been a trend in recreating the most famous wars on the big screen. Several films try to capture historical conflicts such as wars and show the different sides with relating messages. Robert Eberwein starts introducing film history in his book, The Hollywood War Film, in a chronological order starting from the Civil War until Iraq and the War on Terror (14-42). Several critiques, film historians gave a definition to what a war film is . The answer depends on whom one is reading according to Eberwein (42).
At the core of the controversy surrounding The Interview and what we think is the reason Sony was hacked and Guardians of Peace threatened violence against theaters that show the movie is less than a favorable depiction of Kim Jong-Un. They portray Kim Jong-Un as an American pop culture-loving, goofball dictator who still has deep feelings about his relationship with his deceased dictatorial dad. They see him as a god among men as North Korean legend dictates.What I find pretty funny because Katy Perry’s “Firework” plays a crucial role in the film. Aside from the real world drama, it is important to separate the movie’s relatively and political side from, racist routines. Because quite frankly this movie is extremely racist; but hilarious.
He should be somewhat more menacing and angry, like in the book, rather than acting very creepy. He is immensely powerful in the books, and uses that to his advantage, but flaunts it very uncharacteristically in the movie in order to throw off the main character. One may describe him as a puppeteer of sorts. The actors cast in the movie don’t look like the book describes the characters. The only actor that really did well was the man who played Brom.
Will he continue to be just another director in the production system or will he embrace his individuality and become an auteur? This theme was discussed indirectly but extensively in Hitchcock’s 1962 interview with Truffaut. When asked how/why he chose to present the story of Stage Fright Hitchcock answered, “There were a couple of book reviews who said this would make a good Hitchcock film. And I like an idiot believed it.” Here he hinted at the desire to produce his own style of film. Something that that placed him at odds with the reel pressures of Hollywood cinematic production system, where he had learned the philosophy “when you feel things are not working right [...] we must run a cover or play safe.” A statement that he soon followed with the comment that he should never have endeavored to film Stage
Considering this, since DW Griffith grew up in an era where the subjugation of others was far from abnormal, his perspective was molded to follow this, thus leading to why he, and many others, could not grasp what the issue of the film was. With that in mind, it is important to remember that celebration and exaltation are vastly different from an informative display. The connotation of showing the film in a theater differs from that of showing it in a classroom or museum exhibit. As an example, recently on campus various statues depicting confederate heroes were removed from display due to those statues “become[ing] symbols of modern white supremacy and neo-Nazism” (Fenves). However, they were relocated to a museum where they are no longer celebrated but studied as a piece of history.
Low-key lighting, silhouettes, limited dialogues and a sense of urgency and crime highlighted the genre. This was popularised by Warner Bros. who had little funds for their films. So part of their set and characters would be kept in the dark - hiding unnecessary information from the viewers. The cinematic style however immensely loved by the viewers. Towards the end of the 1950s film production companies started to have more funding for films and use of darkness was not a necessity anymore.
Peter Appleton’s dilemma is that he is a big Hollywood film writer and living the American dream, but things start to go down because he has been accused of communism. Now back in the 50s, communism was an event that if you were just simply accused of being a communist no one would
I have chosen to write about crime films set in 70s New York and their historical accuracy, because I am an aspiring filmmaker. Thus studying about the worlds most renowned movie set, New York and analyzing to what extent filmmakers got inspired by the reality of the “Big Apple” is a very fascinating and intricate topic. Specifically crime films are very interesting as they were made by the great directors of modern cinema. With this paper I wish to deceiver how much the filmmakers grounded their films in reality and how much of the films were pure artistic interpretation. In my paper I will not be investigating the main plot of the films, but the tone and portrayal of New York.