But, in addition to being a character study about coming to terms with oneself, Campo Santo also details a more immediate mystery to unravel in Firewatch. Because it quickly becomes apparent that something is amiss at Shoshone; a poorly handled confrontation with some careless campers combined with a sneaking suspicion they are being watched instills a sense of dread in the newfound friends. But, sadly, I feel that Firewatch 's plot is its least enjoyable aspect; in particular when contrasted to the well-written character study. And while I suspect Campo Santo were attempting to imbue the mystery with paranoia caused by the isolationism, they are unsuccessful in doing so satisfactorily. In particular, because the mystery is rendered nigh-on insignificant by its unlikely, and unrewarding, conclusion - it feels as if you are being strung along different avenues by multiple poorly conceived red herrings that all fail to amount to anything resembling meaningful.
In contrast, The Maltese Falcon uses this omniscience sparingly when showing characters’ true feelings about their own and each other’s actions. Characters lie and act deceitful towards each other as they pursue their own goals throughout the film. However, the viewer isn’t in on the truth when they hear a lie, or even know if what is spoken is truth or lie. For example, Spade seems to be playing on both Gutman and O'Shaughnessy’s side throughout the movie. In this case, the film has a limited narrator.
You have to want to be reminded of the power of faith in things unseen and the need to find courage to follow a path not yet trod" (Weber). However, the writer is completely ignorant to the extent of which psychoanalytic theories and perspective play a factor, for it is a largely segment of this particular film. Within another article, "Chapter 7; Oppositional Gaze; Black Female Spectators; . . .In Black Looks: Race And Representation" which is written by Bell Hooks, the author general discusses how there happens to be a multitude of "Hollywood Cinema . . .
Michael Hoffman’s 1999 adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, among numerous alterations from Shakespeare’s original work, fundamentally challenges the audience’s former notions of Nick Bottom. Often viewed by other critics and filmmakers, and even Shakespeare himself, as a simpleton, Bottom has seldom been portrayed as anything other than a lowly beast or a foolish clown. However, in his film, Hoffman abandons commonplace interpretations in order to create a rounded and complex character through which the audience finds empathy and compassion. Hoffman achieves this task of reinvigorating Nick Bottom through his use of thematic elements, costume design, and character interactions. Through their comical ignorance, in stark contrast to the
The viewer is left without anyone to trust; isolated and without a figure or villain to point the blame at. Through an, at first, simple but increasing complex plot, submerged in hidden meanings and The luxury of a resolution is withheld from us, leaving us to hang in
Lastly, we observe the difference in sound mixing of the chariot race sequence in the third act of both films. 3.2 CINEMATOGRAPHY COMPARISON First I will discuss the difference in cinematography between the two films. A film consists of many different shots. Every single shot requires the best possible viewing angle to convey the narrative to the audience.
The narration in the movie can be described as circular narrative as the ending and beginning when merged complete the timeline of the movie(1). This narrative structure is rather unconventional and reminds the audience at multiple instances that this is not real life and they are watching a movie. One of these instances include Mia (Uma Thurman) drawing a rectangle on screen while talking to Vincent (John Travolta) in car in front of Jack Rabbit Slim’s. The film includes multiple clues which link its narration style to Post Modernism. To understand this linkage, firstly Post Modernism should be described.
Not just a temporal re-ordering of a film, but rather films of a more avant-garde style that cannot be interpreted by previous experience. In a general sense, avant-garde cinema will break conventions and as such it could be explained as their use of unique semiotics, often being what differentiates the films that fall under that category. The conventional production techniques are still used within the Avant-garde, but the stark differences to what normative spectators expect is where we find this kind of disconnect. Usually this comes from the vision of the director, but the issue here is that if it truly is Avant-garde, a spectator can then only truly learn the codified semiotics per director and thus has to re-learn a style with each different director to comprehend the film. Hence a semiotic explanation to this could be argued to be too simplistic, it is not merely acquiring the new code-based schemata, because truly avant-garde films will not have the same codification.
Also, the background music wasn’t helpful either. It distracted me as the person read. In conclusion, I believe the play is better than the audio. My three reasonings were, I can visualize, hear the voices, and see the reactions that are happening.
The main concern about the presentation is the structure. The structure is told in a non-linear style. While this style initially engages, after a while it becomes a bit more challenging to follow and it begins to feel too repetitive. The first half of the script flows much more easily than the second half of the script.
Fear drives this slow movement and creates a way for audiences to truly feel connected to the ways Elliot feels. The frame changes the perspective and now shows Elliot’s view of the situation rather than a wide shot of the entire scene playing out. The lack of wide shots in the scene allows for more perspective change within the scene, and it would ruin ET’s back lighting throughout the scene. The shot of the Reese’s Pieces helps the audiences and Elliot’s understanding of ET. This close up of ET placing the Reese’s on Elliot’s blanket starts out creepy, especially since nobody knows what ET planned on doing.