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?