Bedlam (Television Show) - Blog 4

Recently i got into this British Television show called Bedlam. It premiered on ITV on October 1, 2011. I only watched the first season starring Theo James, Charlotte Salt, Hugo Speer,  Will Young, and Ashley Madekwe. This drama is based off supernatural chills centered around a haunted insane asylum turned apartment building. What i found interesting for this TV series compared to American TV series we are accustomed to is this season only have 6 episodes. Usually TV series have about 22 to 24 episodes per season.

In one clip i found starting from 43 seconds to 1:02, (http://youtu.be/uMNWWl0S7AQ?t=43s)  interesting. This is from the first episode when Kate played by Charlotte Salt, was in the bathtub and we knew she was in danger. The soundtrack helped give us the idea of she was in trouble. The camera did a zoom in of the ring she was wearing. The ring was connected with a dark spirit that was drowned to death in the asylum.  We see the special effects of the black goo oozing from the walls. It gave the scene more dramatic effect. It let the audience know that something big was happening. When Kate was taken under the water, the spirit took over and tried to drown her. We see a bird eyes view shot of the spirits hands, covering her mouth trying to stop her from breathing. Then we see Kate put her hand on the tub trying to get out but the camera zoomed in on the spirits hand preventing her. Jed (played by Theo James) comes to the rescue but the camera angle is different. I am thinking the camera was under the water trying to get the shot of Jed saving her. It was a good aspect because i thought it was an interesting shot.

For this scene there wasn't too much lighting going on. I didn't think there needed to be since it was a dramatic scene that could lead to Kate's death. The only light i see was the light from the lamp and the light from the outside window. But if it had too much light, i don't think the scary effect could have captured the audience.

The Importance of Good Sound

The title says it all. Recently I watched a movie on Netflix called "Paintball".  Almost the whole film was shot in what felt like found footage but was more of a "we don't own a tripod" shaky cam. Although this was an issue the fact stands that the audio for this film was so low that at normal viewing volume it could not be heard and when we cranked up the volume it was still extremely hard to hear. The film was low budget and really crappy but over all plot was sound and the footage (although shaky at times) was good. I can even say the lighting was fair. The sound issue was what killed this movie for me. It told the story very well visual, I can only imagine how it would have been if both were pair perfectly.

The importance of sound quality is bigger then just being able to hear the film. Sound creates a completely different world. I have no problem listening to a T.V. show but if there is a lack of sound I must fix the issue or I will just not watch it. Sound also helps with moving a scene along. I could go on but it just seems like I would start restating myself. The point stands, low sound is better then no sound, bad sound is better then low sound, and good sound is better then bad sound.

FSBlog 4: Found Footage Thoughts

    FOUND FOOTAGE BLOG

     Last week I found this very interesting article on Reddit about "found footage" (also known as shaky-cam) linked right here http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/feature/a562817/in-defense-of-found-footage-the-unfairly-maligned-horror-subgenre.html#~oBI5wUbZpFaoqg...

To summarize the article:

- Found Footage often gets a bad rap

- Peter Watkins' 1971 mock-doc Punishment Park is the origin of FF

- The Blair Witch Project is the main legacy -> (Cost 35k, made 250 Million) 

((Chronicle is in a smiliar situation)) 

- Found Footage is extremely versatile

- It's easy to film because of the fact that everything happens "live"
- It CAN be done wrong

     My thoughts: I quite like the found footage genre. It's produced fun movies like Chronicle and Cloverfield and quite frankly when it works, it works. However, there is something that needs to be pointed out. The idea of found footage, in the movie itself, needs to make sense. A movie shouldn't use this style of filming just because it wants a lowered budget and a way to mask crappy special effects or camera tricks. It also shouldn't be SO "found footagey" (admittedly, like some parts of Cloverfield) that you cannot focus on anything that's happening. Instead, it should be plausible that for whatever reason, a character in the movie would have the means, purpose, and camera type, to be recording at all. Those are just my thoughts: What do you guys think? 

Blog Entry #4 - We Were Soldiers - “But in the end, they fought not for their country or their flag - they fought for each other.”

“But in the end, they fought not for their country or their flag - they fought for each other.”
We Were Soldiers - Blog #4

(For the items I refer to in this entry, start at 0:41)

Genre: Action/Drama/History

Directed By: Randall Wallace

Written By: Harold G. Moore (book) Joseph L. Galloway (book) & Randall Wallace (screenplay)

Starring:

Mel Gibson as Lt. Col. Hal Moore

Madeleine Stowe as Julie Moore

Greg Kinnear as Maj. Bruce 'Snake' Crandall

Sam Elliott as Sgt. Maj. Basil Plumley

Chris Klein as 2nd Lt. Jack Geoghegan

Keri Russell as Barbara Geoghegan

Barry Pepper as Joe Galloway

Duong Don as Lt. Col. Nguyen Huu An 

Faith - is something we all innately possess. Whether we choose to hold belief in a higher power, the universe, or even just ourselves, faith is one of many guides and influences upon the junctures of our lives. Upon viewing Randall Wallace’s We Were Soldiers after quite some time, it easily re-solidified its stance as a personal favorite among the war film genre. By appealing to the humanity within us all, and showing the viewers that those who wear a uniform are much more than simply that - rather than just merely perpetuating and recreating the violence of the battles of old, it serves as a fantastic display of what kind of gripping storytelling can be achieved.

The film tells of Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore, along with the men of 1^st Battalion, 7^th Cavalry, and their endeavors spent overseas on the soil of Vietnam - specifically, in the Ia Drang Valley, which came to be known as “The Valley of Death”, and as the first major battle of the Vietnamese War. The action is gruesome, but the true-to-life horror is matched by the heroism and morality of the men in combat. But, what makes this notion so intriguing in how most war films are blatantly in favor of the Americans, and hoist them onto the pedestal as heroes either right from the get go and hold us high, or inevitably place us upon that grand position in the end. Wallace decided to do things a little differently, and appeal to both sides of this conflict - and the barefaced fact that they are also men of faith.

Many scenes within this work I found truly memorable- and the approach by which it was done was a carefully orchestrated symphony in itself. The film takes almost 45 minutes to establish the foundation - that these soldiers are family men, with wives and children. One of the best scenes to clarify this to the viewer is the party held prior to their departure, where an establishing shot from far away makes it seem like any other. But, as the camera comes closer, and we see the emotion on the faces of the soldiers and their wives, we see the dread, the fear, and the sorrow. The very simple fact that yes - the possibility exists that they may not come back from the job they’re obligated to undertake. Arguably the most compelling non-combat scene is where Gibson, as Lt. Col. Moore, is sitting on the bed beside his wife the very night they’re to leave in full gear. The lighting helps to establish the looming trepidation, and the tension is there. Then, in a resolute act, he steps out of his home into the night, dons the kevlar helmet, and marches alone to meet the rest of his men under the glow of the light in the dark. His men show up, and they stand unwavering in the night, beacons of the light - heroes. The symbolism here, paired with the aesthetics and musical score are incredibly powerful.

Additionally, the use of juxtaposition was masterful towards the end of the film in one instance in particular. Hal and his men are victorious in driving back the Vietnamese with a surprise attack before their own at dawn. Major “SnakeShit” Crandall flies in right before Vietnamese soldiers are able to regain their composure and use heavy weaponry to shift the tide of the American assault - and he lays waste to handful upon handful of enemy combatants. Upon the completion of this assault, Lt. Col. Nguyen surrenders and orders his men to withdraw. Afterwards, a battle-worn Joseph Galloway, who was crazy enough to place himself in the middle of the conflict as a non-combatant journalist (though the son of a family of soldiers) is seen next to the innocent gaggle of journalists flown in by helicopter who immediately bombard him, and Lt. Col. Moore with questions. After both of them dismiss the journalists, we see how this incident, in Moore’s eyes, solidifies Galloway as the man to tell the story to the world - because he earned his right to be there. To fight, and perhaps to die, beside him and the men of the 7^th Cavalry.

In summary, the mechanics, paired with the profound symbolism within We Were Soldiers help to provide a storytelling experience beyond the norm. As time passes, these principles we learn and practice are becoming more and more evident to us in the movies we watch and re-watch, and on our own projects. These techniques go hand in hand with the product we produce, and every day I’m reminded of the fact that there is a direct correlation between the effort - and the results achieved. A great work doesn’t just “look good” - it also stirs the heart.

David Lynch's Mulholland Drive

Lynch’s intentionally illogic cuts and transitions contribute to the dreamscape of “Mulholland Drive.” Take, for example, the sequence around the 1:55:00 mark of the film; while staring out of the window, Diane [Naomi Watts] presumably feels the presence of, and turns to see, Camilla standing beside her. The eye trace is logical—the next cut shows Camilla looking back at Diane; we cut back to Diane, whose mood clearly shifts (which, in turn, changes the mood of the scene as a whole), and the subsequent cut shows Diane (on the left side of the screen, previously occupied by Camilla) looking [screen right] back at herself. The shot continues, as Diane begins to make coffee, before cutting to a wide shot—where, of course, there is only one Diane. Next, we’re given a close-up of the coffee; Diane pours a cup. The next shot follows Diane as she walks over to the couch, mug in hand; the camera is focused in on the texture of her bathrobe. Continuing in the same shot, the camera leaves Diane and tracks aerially over the couch to reveal a naked Camilla (though, we’ve previously been led to read her presence as hallucinatory). In the next cut, Diane climbs over the couch, in jean shorts and topless herself. As her hand comes into view, she carries a glass of liquor, and the camera zooms in as she places it on the table. The close-ups of these objects can be read as accents, as highlights of difference to disorient the audience. The close-up of the coffee foreshadows and contrasts against the liquor; and the same goes for the texture of the robe—against, probably, the texture of bare skin. At any rate, the illogical sequence results in what appears to be an indecipherable reality.   

How I Met Alex Hopeless

This is my rough cut of my How I Met Your Mother skit.  For some reason theres no sound, so throw on some cool music or something.  Let me know if you find something that fits for filler music

Original Scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT-VNgbdz60

How I Met Alex Hopeless