Heart of Darkness- Congo River

I think it's very interesting to compare Conrad's description of the river to the Garden of Eden.

I thought I would put in some pictures of the river.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEUjr7G0KNpSOseeZBiH0K3H_hum-k8feNS23pNSM0JvDTw8n83St4sfD90nj5Sn1CHn2VoqCqZzv30u3ukL8mvWjODGT-dY5VdH4uC6rcD-j2zAOH8HeY2xjHsMQHRpPhfBKL-nnFJDN1/s1600/congo-river-nat-geo.jpg

http://www.wackyowl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/congo-river.jpg

http://inlinethumb04.webshots.com/43011/2344088890102973086S425x425Q85.jpg

What do you think? Did you think of the Garden of Eden when you first read the description of the river? Do you believe Marlow is voyaging back to Eden? But also, in what ways do you see this as evil?

I think it's interesting that the Conrad describes the river as snake-like and evil. Much like in the Garden of Eden, with the story of Adam and EVe, the snake represents evil. Could Marlow himself represent Adam being tempted by the "snake" and also going mad as the river continues? Or do you have a different version of this idea?

Just something to think about.

Colonialism and Ethnocentricism in Heart of Darkness

There are many things that happen within the book, Heart of Darkness, that are either blatantly racist or in many ways heartless. A lot of scenes lend themselves to hinting at the idealized western culture and how the people in the jungle are 'untamed' or animal-like. There is also a strong sense of the need for colonization and to 'improve' this culture. What are some ways that Conrad makes this evident in his book? And do you think that he himself believes this is right or is it him trying to make known an issue in our society?

Apocolypse Now

Apocolypse Now is a metaphor for a journey into the self and in the face of war the self "darkens". As the characters move upriver, Willard and the PBR crew become more and more agitated not to mention seperated from reality. Each crew member goes through some kind of mental breakdown due to this. The film starts as an exciting voyage but morphs into a decent into hell and the characters response to this is to harden themselves. They begin to withdrawl and tranform into different people entirely. The coming maddness is shown by cloaking the journey in darkness.

Any other thoughts about this connection between war and the darkening self?

Heart of Darkness

The question of how Heart of Darkness compares with other works was brought up in class.

I wanted to comment that when taken in comparison with something like Mrs. Dalloway it is difficult to see this book as being experimental. However it is not the timeline that makes this story different it is the use of emotion (through the many adjectives) that makes this book experimental in nature.

For those of you that did not comment in class what are your thoughts?

"Apocalypse Now" opening

In the opening scene of Apocalypse Now, the mise en scene brought to attention includes a contrast of nature and society (cutting back and forth between the shots of the Vietnam jungle and the clean room of Willard respectively). There are visual representations of a kind of “hell” as the fire consumes the trees in Vietnam. The most interesting imagery though is the use of the ceiling fan blades as the helicopter blades as Willard stares up at the ceiling from his bedroom, symbolizing the haunting memories of the gliding helicopters in Vietnam. The cinematography includes interesting lap dissolves of Willard’s face over the images of the Vietnam jungle burning and helicopters. It's a really interesting dynamic and certainly sets the tone for the dreamlike aesthetic that the rest of the film carries.

Additionally, I'm on the side that would argue that the film gets better throughout, as it builds on itself on a psychological level, getting more intense throughout, even if it's subtle.

Racism in Heart of Darkness?

In class we were discussing the two articles that are about the Heart of Darkness novel. Chinua Achebe claims that Conrad is a racist but Edward Said sympathizes with Conrad. I would agree with Said because yes it may look like racism to us but you have to remember that Conrad was born in a different century where saying things a certain way was normal. I believe that he grew up in a certain environment and when he was exposed to another he described it the only way he knew how which was different than what he was used to. Everyone is susceptible to thinking that another culture is different or weird just because it is not like his or her own. Any other comments?

-Danielle Holub

"The Whole Shootin' Match" and regional film.

On this past Wednesday night, I saw the Texas independent film "The Whole Shootin' Match" and listened to Sonny Carl Davis speak about his experience with the film and what he is currently working on (including one of his newest experiences with the film "Evil Bong 3-D"). One of the biggest points discussed was that "The Whole Shootin' Match" was made as a regional film, where it is tailor made for those living in one specific area. Filmed in the Texas hill country, this film was made for Texans.

My question is this: What advantages does a film like this have over a bigger, Hollywood production. "The Whole Shootin' Match" had no effects, no big name actors, and its humor is only understood my Texas residents. Why make a film like this?

-James Kennedy

Theme of Light and Dark

The theme of the light and dark is prevalent throughout Heart of Darkness. The light is the more intelligent, civilized, and calm part of humans whereas the darkness represents human nature, as thought of by Conrad. He thought that the savages represented the darkness: their urge to survive and control along with their greed. The themes are also present in Apocalypse Now. We hardly see Kurtz, he is mostly in the shadows. When he is watching the tribal rituals, you can only see his silhouette almost as if he is descending into the darkness. It could be argued that Willard was also descending into the darkness, such as in the last scene where there is a shadow over his face. Do any of you see any other things in the movie or the book that support this theory?

Apocalypse Now

Apocalypse Now is a film that focuses on a deranged soldier that has been given a mission to hunt down and kill yet another deranged ex-soldier. How does this make the climax of the movie more enticing? Also along with the fact that they are both mentally unstable, are these characters foils of one another and if so how does this make the film a success or does it make it unsuccessful?

Apocalypse Now

Being a psychology major, I thought that the psychological elements of the movie were very interesting. In the very beginning, viewers are exposed to a character (Captain Willard) who clearly suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. As the movie progresses, he becomes more and more conscious of the atrocities of war. I feel that this is effective in really opening our eyes to the harsh realities of war. We see how it can tear people down and destroy their lives. Willard is completely distraught but then is expected to return to battle. Kurtz was also a very interesting character psychologically, along with his hold on people. I thought it was so odd that the American photographer was so infatuated with Kurtz and that he also was able to get all of the natives on his side; it seemed as though he was brainwashing them. At the very end, after Willard kills Kurtz, I feel as though he replaces or becomes him and I liked how they left the ending up for interpretation.

"Da Buddha"

At first the association with Buddha was somewhat puzzling. I wondered if Coppola was making use of the stone images simply for atmosphere's sake. Aesthetics is a driving force for him, and it is one of the very first things that strikes some about this film, its beauty. Maybe he is just playing with extremes for a purely visual effect? It seems that morality is intamately interwoven with this film in which a feeling determines right and wrong; what is "good" or "bad". The relationship between feeling and insight is critical- and I feel Coppola might have portrayed this through the visual extremes throughout the movie and how Kurtz is represented. We never really see him in full daylight, only in hard contrast. His bald head beaming from the darkness, almost as perplexing as the stone Buddha's, and a scene of Kurts reading dissolves into an extreme close-up of the Buddha's lips.

"A Buddha is any human who has fullly awakened to
the true nature of existence, whose insight has totally transformed him or
her beyond birth, death, and subsequent rebirth, and who is enabled to help
others achieve the same enlightment"

Could it be possible that Buddha mirrors Kurtz, and at the end, Willard?

Film Noir in Apocalypse Now

Obviously the film noir style is present in Apocalypse Now. Such as visually in the introduction you have the character looking through the classic venetian blinds, as well as shots of alcohol, smoke, guns, fans and characters light in low key lighting (especially in the end with the Marlon Brando character).

Audio wise, you have the voice over first person narration of Sheen as well as quiet ambient noise, and a melancholic rock soundtrack, which is arguably what was popular at the time just as jazz/big band music was in the early 40s with film noir's melancholic jazz soundtrack. So does the noir-esqe narration help reinforce the idea of unreliable narrator of the uncanny?

In addition the plot is similar to the classic film noir detective story where Sheen's character plays this military 'detective' on a mission to track down the 'criminal' Kurtz, as well as battling internal moralistic values. So, is the film noir style effective in the adaptation of Heart of Darkness to Apocalypse Now? Why do you think the director Coppola chose to film it this way?

-Cassie

Is "Apocalypse Now" true to the novel "Heart of Darkness"?

I think that the themes are the same between the to two pieces but I don't think the movie is an exact depiction of the book. I see it as a more modernization of the book because Apocalypse Now's setting and time is different than the "Heart of Darkness". I agree that it has the same kind of characters and plot but the time is completely different. Any comments? Agree or disagree? -Danielle Holub

Ride of the Valkyries

One of the comments I didn't mention in class refers to the song "Ride of the Valkyries" by Wagner.

When I first heard this music in Apocalypse, Now, it reminded me of Birth of a Nation.

For some of you that don't know, Birth of a Nation is a black and white silent film made in 1915. It was considered highly controversial because it depicts blacks as "unintelligent and sexually aggressive towards white women. It also portrays the Ku Klux Klan as a heroic force." Wiki. I haven't seen the movie, but I came across one of the scenes on youtube upon doing research in the past. In the film they have a scene where the KKK rides to "victory" in the sense of rescuing the white women and disarming the blacks. Thus making them heroes and bringing order to a nation during Reconstruction. This song was played during this scene. It's probably one of the few films that will forever be controversial that is still being debated to this day.

So yeah. When I saw the scene in Apocalypse, Now, I felt like it didn't show the Americans in Vietnam in a good light because of the song. You have these "white" Americans coming in to Vietnam and basically destroying the villages in the scene. They think that what they are doing is right, but at the same time and really, it is wrong. The scene depicts American imperialism at it's best/worst.

Something to think about.

Olga Martinez

Mass Tragedy from a smaller point of view in film

During last Monday’s film, we discussed Violence when we were talking about Hiroshima mon Amour. The point was brought up that violence often evokes a purely emotional response before bringing about logical thought. I agree with this statement. We also discussed how bringing a massive tragedy into the perspective of a few people can have an interesting effect on the viewer.

As we were talking about this, I thought of the film Hotel Rwanda. I believe it is a great example of both of these topics. Hotel Rwanda drew attention to an event that wasn’t extremely well known and didn’t gain a lot of it previously. It does this by establishing a connection with individuals, mainly Don Cheadle’s character and his family. It continues by showing the horrible events of the Rwandan genocide. It shows scenes of mass violence, and how it effects this family. I think one of the most emotionally grabbing scenes was the one in which they are driving in the van and hit some bumps on a foggy day. They step out of the van and there are bodies everywhere.

I believe much of the film’s success comes in the story telling from the point of view of the hotel owner, who took in the oppressed people and protected them in his hotel. It helps the viewer relate to how such a huge tragedy could effect themselves, which I believe really puts it into perspective. If you haven’t seen Hotel Rwanda, I would highly recommend it.

RSD

Hiroshima mon Amour

I wanted to talk about the begining of the film when it is stated that she doesnt know what she is talking about and that she did not see anything. I agree with the idea that it is not him telling her that she does not know what happened but instead that she just only knows basic facts because she was not there. He was not their but he has family that was so he feels more tied to the incident he knows more about the details and feels more intimately tied to the whole thing. When she says that she was the things at the museum and he tells her that she didnt he is doing the same thing again. He is telling her that seeing something in a museum is not like seeing the distruction in person it does not even compare. Does anyone think differently?

Narrator Credibility

The topic of Narrator Reliability was brought up in class. I did not find the narrator of last year to be reliable because the scenes were so scattered (past/present) that it was difficult to trust him on what was real and what wasn't. It was also difficult to trust the narrator because he said allot of things that were not true. For instance a door would be clearly open and he would say that it was closed. Situations such as this caused his credibility to diminish throughout the film for me.

Hiroshima Mon Amour Language Barrier

I think a very interesting scene in the movie is towards the end. Lui is at a station with Elle and a Japanese lady is between them. The Japanese lady talks to Lui asking him about French woman and what's wrong with her. In the script, that particular scene was suppose to be completely untranslated in film, not giving the audience the chance to understand what exactly they're talking about. They both speak Japanese, a language the French woman doesn't understand. It's funny how this particular scene wasn't translated for the audience. What do you think the purpose of this scene was? Why was it not translated exactly for the audience? My own little theory is that since the french woman doesn't understand the language, the audience too shouldn't understand it either, unless you know Japanese. But why?

Just something to think about.

Memory

In both Hiroshima mon amour and Last Year at Marienbad, there are themes of repetitiveness and seemingly lost memories. The movies are both directed by Alain Renais and the characters are nameless. The woman in Last Year in Marienbad denies ever meeting the man who is incessantly telling her that they had met before and in Hiroshima mon amour She is telling Him, using repetitive dialogue certain things that Him denies ever happened.

What do you think was the point in not giving the characters names? I think it makes the viewers wonder if the memories were in fact true.

Pictures for Memory

In both films, Hiroshima mon Amor and Last Year in Marienbad, we see the director use almost photographic clips to portray memory and when he does this allows the audience to question whether or not the memories are in fact real. This type of cinematography allows the audience to question what is being shown and the authenticity of what they see. Since the director does this, he gives a lot of control and power to the audience to decide or create their own understanding. Most directors seem to use film to make the audience think a certain way, but he allows the audience freedom in understanding what is taking place in the film. With this in mind, is the director truly giving freedom to the audience to create their own conclusions or is he giving the audience a false sense of control? How do you think this plays into what the director wants? And is the sense of control actually more of a puppetiering act by the director and we just aren't aware of it?

HIroshima and the Confused Memory

In the beginning scene of the movie Hiroshima mon Amor, the man is questioning the woman what she remembers or if she remembers Hiroshima and when she answers, he diligently responds with denying her the recalled memory. My thoughts after seeing this scene, I couldn't help but wonder if the two intertwined people we are seeing are in fact her and this man or glimpses of her memory with her deceased lover back when Hiroshima was attacked. With this in mind, this would support the that what we were seeing and what she was recalling, in the picture like memories would in fact be true because she remembers her previous lover and also is recalling the memories of Hiroshima, however she may just have intertwined these harsh and hurtful memories together unable to separate them. This arises an interesting point or portrayal of these past memories through the director and what he intended to accomplish with this inital scene in the movie.

Memory, shared consciousness

The Cathy Caruth reading and its analysis of the Resnais film Hiroshima mon amour are interesting when studying the connection between memory and history, trauma, and how a story is composed. It brings up a lot of questions about authenticity and accuracy of history, and whether it can be reached on different paradoxical levels in art, and film. It reminds me of the idea of the unconscious as sort of a shared space, turning it inside out and no longer a deep well which we only privately share. It's a space which we all freely draw from and because of this, we are connected and/or making connections.

Here's a music video for the Scissor Sisters song "Invisible Light" that plays around with tangent imagery that somehow seems to make sense in our mind, based off rich experiences in visuals we encounter in our daily lives, in film, etc. http://vimeo.com/17444911 (probably NSFW by the way)

This sort of buildup of motion vectors within the piece always leads the audience to a new interpretation. It plays off what Eisenstein did in Battleship Potemkin. What do you think? Does this make sense when we look at these like this, as it connects to framing a narrative from memories, and our unconscious?

The self-reflexivity of Contempt

While I think all of Godard's films are at least interesting, Contempt is probably my favorite for the way it builds tension and emotion between the characters through such a subversive cinematic way. The mise-en-scene works in a way with shot framing, French flag colors (though arguably also connected to America), and Brechtian form techniques. The film is about a French screenwriter, Paul, who is being courted by a vulgar American producer to rewrite the script for Fritz Lang. Self-conscious in many different ways, the film is about a movie being made, and has a rebellious tone in what would seem to be at face-value a pretty straightforward adaptation of the Italian novel on which it is based. Working off a big budget in a studio system setting, Godard still maintains complete control over every element of his film. While Brigitte Bardot was chosen with the producers' insistence to visibly showcase her sensual body, Godard manipulates studio intervention like this with the way he puts together the opening scene. It becomes a mockery of the cinema as "business" by taming the nuditiy, having Bardot spread across a bed naked while discussing something mundane. The dramatic music also repeats the same part over and over again, coming in at inappropriate times where it doesn't make sense to emphasize anything on-screen, and cuts off abruptly for no reason. The camera will also linger on certain dead spaces where characters leave the framing entirely, and certain framing of characters in shots tests the limits of the wide display of Cinemascope. But Contempt isn't just subversive of all these things formally but also in terms of content, as it challenges "epics". A review by Nathan Gelgud from the re-release of the film in 2008 sums this point up well: "Contempt is a movie about boredom, disgust and impatience told in the heightened language of vivid imagery."

I wonder if a lot of the sarcastic, self-reflexive, ironic things that Godard was doing in Contempt were just going over the heads of the producers or whether they gave in to his creative manipulation.

Nameless Characters

Many factors contribute to the eeriness of "Last Year of Marienbad," but something I found particularly interesting was the lack of names. The three main characters are not named which parallels with the discussion the man and the woman have about the statue early in the film. He remarks that the names are not important. The names of the characters clearly were not important to the film maker likely for a similar reason. By not naming the statues, the figures depicted can be anybody. Similarly, by not naming the characters in the film, they can essentially be anybody. The lack of names adds to the ambiguity that prevails in the film.

Last Year at Marienbad

The opening scene of "Last Year at Marienbad" really stuck out to me because of the similarities it has with Edgar Allen Poe's "House of Usher". The screen is filled with various shots of an old mansion inside and out. There is a voice that repeats the same ideas of dark long corridors and empty rooms. An eerie feeling is created that almost makes the viewer feel trapped much like Poe intended to do in his writings. To top it all off, the music that plays constantly could be classified as suspenseful and frightening. The sound track actually got annoying after about the third time hearing it. Overall I really enjoyed watching the film, mainly how it was shot. The way the characters seem to freeze and unfreeze was intriguing.

Contempt and language

So- I am an Anthropology major, and language is a big part of what I study. Because Contempt is in french, I couldn't help but feel that we were missing out on the some of the essence of the film due to english being our native language.

Do you think that language influences us to percieve the world in a different manner than another language would?

Let me elaborate with a study one of my professors did...

Follow me to Pormpuraaw, a small Aboriginal community on the western edge of Cape York, in northern Australia. she went here because of the way the locals, the Kuuk Thaayorre, talk about space. Instead of words like "right," "left," "forward," and "back," which, as commonly used in English, define space relative to an observer, the Kuuk Thaayorre, like many other Aboriginal groups, use cardinal-direction terms — north, south, east, and west — to define space. This is done at all scales, which means you have to say things like "There's an ant on your southeast leg" or "Move the cup to the north northwest a little bit." One obvious consequence of speaking such a language is that you have to stay oriented at all times, or else you cannot speak properly. The normal greeting in Kuuk Thaayorre is "Where are you going?" and the answer should be something like " Southsoutheast, in the middle distance." If you don't know which way you're facing, you can't even get past "Hello."

The result is a profound difference in navigational ability and spatial knowledge between speakers of languages that rely primarily on absolute reference frames (like Kuuk Thaayorre) and languages that rely on relative reference frames (like English). Simply put, speakers of languages like Kuuk Thaayorre are much better than English speakers at staying oriented and keeping track of where they are, even in unfamiliar landscapes or inside unfamiliar buildings. What enables them — in fact, forces them — to do this is their language. Having their attention trained in this way equips them to perform navigational feats once thought beyond human capabilities. Because space is such a fundamental domain of thought, differences in how people think about space don't end there. People rely on their spatial knowledge to build other, more complex, more abstract representations. Representations of such things as time, number, musical pitch, kinship relations, morality, and emotions have been shown to depend on how we think about space. So if the Kuuk Thaayorre think differently about space, do they also think differently about other things, like time?

To test this idea, they gave people sets of pictures that showed some kind of temporal progression (pictures of a man aging, or a crocodile growing, or a banana being eaten). Their job was to arrange the shuffled photos on the ground to show the correct temporal order. They tested each person in two separate sittings, each time facing in a different cardinal direction. If you ask English speakers to do this, they'll arrange the cards so that time proceeds from left to right. Hebrew speakers will tend to lay out the cards from right to left, showing that writing direction in a language plays a role.3 So what about folks like the Kuuk Thaayorre, who don't use words like "left" and "right"? What will they do?

The Kuuk Thaayorre did not arrange the cards more often from left to right than from right to left, nor more toward or away from the body. But their arrangements were not random: there was a pattern, just a different one from that of English speakers. Instead of arranging time from left to right, they arranged it from east to west. That is, when they were seated facing south, the cards went left to right. When they faced north, the cards went from right to left. When they faced east, the cards came toward the body and so on. This was true even though we never told any of our subjects which direction they faced. The Kuuk Thaayorre not only knew that already ,but they also spontaneously used this spatial orientation to construct their representations of time.

There are so many examples of how language effects the way we think about things..

Does treating chairs as masculine and beds as feminine in the grammar make Russian speakers think of chairs as being more like men and beds as more like women in some way? It turns out that it does. In one study, they asked German and Spanish speakers to describe objects having opposite gender assignment in those two languages. The descriptions they gave differed in a way predicted by grammatical gender. For example, when asked to describe a "key" — a word that is masculine in German and feminine in Spanish — the German speakers were more likely to use words like "hard," "heavy," "jagged," "metal," "serrated," and "useful," whereas Spanish speakers were more likely to say "golden," "intricate," "little," "lovely," "shiny," and "tiny." To describe a "bridge," which is feminine in German and masculine in Spanish, the German speakers said "beautiful," "elegant," "fragile," "peaceful," "pretty," and "slender," and the Spanish speakers said "big," "dangerous," "long," "strong," "sturdy," and "towering." This was true even though all testing was done in English, a language without grammatical gender. The same pattern of results also emerged in entirely nonlinguistic tasks (rating similarity between pictures). And we can also show that it is aspects of language per se that shape how people think: teaching English speakers new grammatical gender systems influences mental representations of objects in the same way it does with German and Spanish speakers. Apparently even small flukes of grammar, like the seemingly arbitrary assignment of gender to a noun, can have an effect on people's ideas of concrete objects in the world.

With all that said, do you think that even with Comtempt dubbed in English, or having English subtitles, that we miss out on the complete essence of the film? I'd love to hear yall's thoughts on this!

Themes of Last Year at Marienbad

There are many themes in this film. A big one is memory, the whole movie he is trying to convince her that they have met before and planned to meet a year later but she says she does not remember. There is also this repetition that goes through out the film with the repetition of certain statues, rooms, etc. There is a lot of repetition in the dialogue, the same phrases keep being repeated about the mansion, about the really cold day when the lakes froze over, and he always says "I met you once" a lot. What other themes do you see? -Danielle Holub

A few thoughts on Contempt

Here's a few thoughts about Contempt that we didn't discuss in class.

First of all, did anyone else think it was odd how quickly Paul's wife turned on him? They went from being madly in love then he commits one alleged mistake and she's done with him. Even though the way they argue during the middle scene was realistic, I didn't find it realistic that his offense was truly unforgivable.

Another thing, I found Paul's internal dilemma reflected a broader theme of growing up, having dependents, in this case his wife, and losing idealism. Paul, like most artists, started out doing what he loved, but not making a lot of money. He was a playwright, but shifted to films so he could make money to give his wife what she wanted. The producer even says early in the film that he will take the money because he has a pretty wife. Paul's story is parallel to thousands of artists, be it writers or musicians, who have to either adjust to more financially lucrative activities or give up their hobbies in exchange for something that makes money. The public tends to throw out the term "sell out" quite a bit when referring to musicians who do what they need to do to make a buck, and Paul could be seen under this same lens. I don't think this label is fair, but it is certainly a common tale for artists. This may have reflected the same dilemma that Godard was facing as he took on his first big budget film which presumably landed him a fat pay check

Tracking Shots in Film

I think for me the tracking shot is a way to have the audience member to be more involved in the scene. The tracking shot makes it seem like you're actually there watching the couple argue in Contempt like you would in real life. It's not telling a story to you by cutting to different shot scenes. It's one whole scene. For me, that makes all the difference. It draws you in more than ever. It really gives the audience the opportunity to be in the scene in a way. It makes it more exciting, or makes the audience more nervous as in Contempt. I found this on youtube a long time ago and I thought I should share. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8kqNSQn5QU It's from Revenge of the Warrior and it's labeled the best one-shot fight scene. I would only watch the first half since it's all in one shot. But techniques like this really makes the audience more involved in the scene. I think stuff like this is amazing since it really allowed cinema to evolve to other tracking techniques with our current technology. For example, Carousel is an awesome tracking shot for a TV advertisement. If you haven't seen it, I would highly recommend watching it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5yhxqkJiAQ&feature=related Something to think about. Olga Martinez

The Motion of the Camera in Contempt

A common trait in the French New Wave movement is long tracking shots through camera movement. The camera motion stands out in Contempt. The scene of the argument in the apartment is very antsy to watch. The camera slowly swings back and forth between the characters arguing in long takes, that you start to get even dizzy and get the feeling that this argument is going no where. This nausea is a technique intended for the audience to give them a feeling that this couples relationship is doomed from the start. Do you feel this technique was successful or do you think Godard had other reasons to shot this scene the way he did?
Yet at the same time, Godard almost seems to critique the idea of the tracking shot in the very beginning by showing a camera itself tracking a scene.

And for those are a fan of the tracking shot, I suggest for you to watch one of the most epic tracking shots, done by Godard himself in the short Weekend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ScGLdfqdYo

-Cassie Hanks

An interesting thought via candy95...

So I was listening to the radio the other morning and they were discussing a new facebook app that is in development stages that really reminded me of class and the themes of the uncanny and machines mimicking humans. Basically the app allows a guy (I'm sure a girl version will be developed soon as well) to make a fake girlfriend to make other girls think he is unavailable and thus want to date him...this goes beyond just making a fake facebook account. He can provide information to facebook about a compatable type for him and then "she" will write on his wall and be controlled by facebook itself. He can send updates about his life so "she" can make timely relevant posts. When a real person does eventually show interest he just has to notify facebook that he needs a "breakup". This is the extent of my knowledge on this application, but it was interesting to me and would add a whole new element to facebook in regards to figuring out what is actually real, or not. I can't quite figure out the logistics of what they are promising or if it will ever be widely used, but it is kind of unsettling nonetheless. One point the host brought up was, what if the guy starts to fall for this "girlfriend" that is showing so much attention. This of course was exactly the problem in the Sandman. What do you all think of this program, will it ever be widely used or is it something to just get people to talk about facebook more?

Contempt-Cross cultural relations

I didn't get a chance to make this point in class the other day because we ran out of time, but I wanted to bring up the scene where the two movie producers are meeting and walking the movie lot. It struck me as very odd the way Prokosch is speaking and touching Javal through out this interaction. I definitely get the point that he is arrogant and doing these things to establish dominance in their working relationship, but it seemed off to me in execution. From having worked with translators in the past I felt very uncomfortable watching Prokosch hold Javal's shoulder while he is listening to the Italian translation of his most recent statement. To me it would have been more effective to have made this first exchange of words more laid back, especially with the thought that Americans, men in particular, typically aren't very touchy upon first introductions. Javal however seems perfectly at ease with the entire exchange. I would find it more natural for him to have at least been taken a back by the things Provosch was demanding and asserting, if not showing discomfort at the delivery. My reasoning for discomfort I think comes from my desire to fall into the movies I watch, and when subtle interactions do not match up with my experiences, especially with regards to culture, it pulls me out of the experience a little bit. With that said though, what do y'all think? Does this exchange fit in with the tone and theme of the rest of the film? Did this scene strike you as odd or did it work for you?

Contempt

Contempt was kind of a difficult movie, but I thought it was really intriguing. What happened behind the camera was also interesting. As said in class, Jean-Luc Godard directed the movie and it was his first big budget film. Contempt is also considered one of Godard's best films; however, he actually hated filming it. I thought it was interesting how certain scenes were added to make the film more popular, especially in America. Godard did not want Brigitte Bardot to have any scenes with nudity in them, but the producer insisted on it to please the masses. He did it in a way that wasn't completely revealing and it seemed to me that it was in such a way that criticized the very thing he was showing in his film. Bardot was sitting a bed nude, talking about mundane things such as her feet and chins; dialogue that is not typically featured with a scene such as that.

Contempt

Its been awhile...

So I just got done watching Contempt and I admit this was a very unique film. I understand that the film is about a film being shot but wow the men in the film really irritated me. What annoys me the most is the way the women were portrayed in the film. Of course, they are viewed as nothing but sex objects and I noticed a few inappropriate parts coming from Jerry and the way he treats Francessca. Although there weren't any actual sex scenes in the film it was obvious from the scenes where Camille is lying naked talking to Paul that those were suppose to represent sex. The truth is Jerry's character made it really hard for me to even like this film to begin with.

Also, it was strange to see Paul's character have no emotional response to Camille's death. All through out the film the two were bickering and fighting and yet he loved her so much. As soon as he finds out that Jerry and Camille are dead it was as if he was reading something in the newspaper but saying it aloud to Francessca. There was no grieving or feeling sorry for Camille who did love her husband but had fallen out of love because he kept leaving her and letting her go with Jerry instead. I think the reason why the film didn't bother to show Paul's character in grief is because the love was already gone between the two. In the film, Paul talks about how if he kills his lover's suitor then she will be mad and he will have lost her forever, but if he killed his lover then he would be all alone and have lost his love too. I think at that moment when he found out that she had died there was nothing else to feel because he had already lost her when she admitted that she despised him. Her mind was already made up so there was no changing it even if he tried some more.

What are your thoughts on the role of women in the film and Paul and Camille's relationship?

Human-like Robots > Robot-like humans

We have been talking a lot in class about the uncanniness of robots displaying human characteristics such as emotions. Today I watched a new movie out in theaters called Source Code and *spoiler alert* the movie ends by revealing information about an injured man who they are using for their new computer program that will prevent major man-made disasters, such as terrorism attacks. So what I started to think about was how much more horrific it is to use a person as a tool, or a robot, or as a "thing" instead of treating them as an able-bodied person. The effect of using humans as technological tools is so much stronger to me than in Blade Runner using robots as functioning humans. Maybe it is because of the idea of what is cruel and unusual or maybe it is because I can relate with an emotional human more so than a robot.

What do y'all think is more uncanny? A functional robot with emotions or a human being used for technology purposes alone?