Option 1
Usually, the central plot of the western film is the simple goal of maintaining law and order on the frontier. It is normally rooted in conflicts of virtue vs. evil, white hat vs. black hat, settlers vs. Native Americans, civilization vs. wilderness, or lawman vs. gunfighter. Specific settings normally include but not limited to isolated forts, ranch houses, a saloon, a jail, or a small town street. Other iconic elements include the hanging tree (a dead giveaway), stetson hats, spurs, colt .45's, bandannas, stagecoaches, cattle drives, prostitutes, and most commonly, the horse ("faithful steed".) Dime store novels and comics were things the western was based on. Oh sure, the characters could have been real. They were, however, blown way out of proportion and made larger than life. People needed a larger than life hero or anti-hero to believe in. Native Americans were often portrayed as savage Indians. It was a popular assumption. Assumptions not really based on fact. Then again, was there any part of the western that really was fact?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Entry 5
Option 3
Is typecasting a good thing or a bad thing? In most cases, it's really a bad thing. Typecasting occurs when an actor plays a similar part from film to film. Over the course of several films, these actors develop a distinct persona, or public image. In certain instances, an actor will become associated with a specific character, whose attributes become fused with his or her own. Sean Connery will be forever linked with James Bond. William Shatner with the role of Captain James T. Kirk. Sylvester Stallone will always be linked to Rocky Balboa and John Rambo. Sometimes it works out for the best. For stars like Clayton Moore (the Lone Ranger) and George Reeves (Superman, one of many to play him anyway) were shackled to the characters they portrayed, and never really found other work because of it. Stars like Owen Wilson have even attempted suicide from depression caused by typecasting.
Is typecasting a good thing or a bad thing? In most cases, it's really a bad thing. Typecasting occurs when an actor plays a similar part from film to film. Over the course of several films, these actors develop a distinct persona, or public image. In certain instances, an actor will become associated with a specific character, whose attributes become fused with his or her own. Sean Connery will be forever linked with James Bond. William Shatner with the role of Captain James T. Kirk. Sylvester Stallone will always be linked to Rocky Balboa and John Rambo. Sometimes it works out for the best. For stars like Clayton Moore (the Lone Ranger) and George Reeves (Superman, one of many to play him anyway) were shackled to the characters they portrayed, and never really found other work because of it. Stars like Owen Wilson have even attempted suicide from depression caused by typecasting.
Entry 4
Option 2
If a person was under contract with a studio, they were a slave to the beast. His or her contracts were seven year terms. An actor worked up to fourteen hours a day. They were forbidden to engage in non approved acting activities (theatre, radio, television.) Their personal behavior was regulated.... there was a morals clause in their contracts. The studio governed over other features of their off screen appearance including hairstyles, choice of clothing, and even their weight. The studio contract required actors to act in whatever films the studio cast them in, made them attend studio publicity functions, publicize their own films, promote product tie-ins, or even be loaned out to other studios to fulfill the same obligations there for one or two pictures. Failure of any of these tasks resulted in suspensions or fines. If you were suspended for any length of time, it was added to the contract and made up. Of course, it couldn't be all bad. After all, you were guaranteed work for seven years. People today would kill for an opportunity like that.
If a person was under contract with a studio, they were a slave to the beast. His or her contracts were seven year terms. An actor worked up to fourteen hours a day. They were forbidden to engage in non approved acting activities (theatre, radio, television.) Their personal behavior was regulated.... there was a morals clause in their contracts. The studio governed over other features of their off screen appearance including hairstyles, choice of clothing, and even their weight. The studio contract required actors to act in whatever films the studio cast them in, made them attend studio publicity functions, publicize their own films, promote product tie-ins, or even be loaned out to other studios to fulfill the same obligations there for one or two pictures. Failure of any of these tasks resulted in suspensions or fines. If you were suspended for any length of time, it was added to the contract and made up. Of course, it couldn't be all bad. After all, you were guaranteed work for seven years. People today would kill for an opportunity like that.
Entry 3
Option 2
Three-point lighting: The standard lighting set-up employed in Hollywood. The three points to which the term refers are the dominant sources of light. The key light or chief directional light source. The fill light, or weaker light source that fills in the shadows cast by the key light. The back light, the minor light that illuminates the space between the back of the set and the characters in order to separate or distinguish the characters from the background. High key lighting: a style of lighting found in musicals, comedies, and other upbeat films, in which the fill light eliminates dark shadows cast by the key light, producing an image that is brightly and evenly lit. Low key lighting: a style of lighting found in film noir, suspense, or horror films, in which there is little fill light. It results in a dark or shadow-filled image. Star lighting: highlights or conceals certain features of the major performers and makes the expressions on their faces readable.
Three-point lighting: The standard lighting set-up employed in Hollywood. The three points to which the term refers are the dominant sources of light. The key light or chief directional light source. The fill light, or weaker light source that fills in the shadows cast by the key light. The back light, the minor light that illuminates the space between the back of the set and the characters in order to separate or distinguish the characters from the background. High key lighting: a style of lighting found in musicals, comedies, and other upbeat films, in which the fill light eliminates dark shadows cast by the key light, producing an image that is brightly and evenly lit. Low key lighting: a style of lighting found in film noir, suspense, or horror films, in which there is little fill light. It results in a dark or shadow-filled image. Star lighting: highlights or conceals certain features of the major performers and makes the expressions on their faces readable.
Entry 2
Option 1
Classical Hollywood cinema possesses a style that is largely invisible and difficult for the average viewer to see. Invisibility is a large part of the product of American cinema's proficiency as a narrative machine. It consists of an introduction of a problem or challenge in the main character's story. The character, whoever they are, spends most of the movie trying to solve their problem. By the end of the movie, they solve the problem (whatever it is.) The classic Hollywood style narrative is formula driven. It doesn't matter who the star is, who the director is, or even who the writer is. An adventure story (Raiders of the Lost Ark) launches with the loss or lack of desired object and concludes with its attainment or discovery. A love story (Pretty Woman) starts with a chance encounter and culminates with a wedding proposal. A monster (Jaws) or horror (Halloween) film begins with the death of an innocent victim and ends with the actual or symbolic death of the person or thing...... until the sequel at least. (Didn't Jason die like ten times already?)
Classical Hollywood cinema possesses a style that is largely invisible and difficult for the average viewer to see. Invisibility is a large part of the product of American cinema's proficiency as a narrative machine. It consists of an introduction of a problem or challenge in the main character's story. The character, whoever they are, spends most of the movie trying to solve their problem. By the end of the movie, they solve the problem (whatever it is.) The classic Hollywood style narrative is formula driven. It doesn't matter who the star is, who the director is, or even who the writer is. An adventure story (Raiders of the Lost Ark) launches with the loss or lack of desired object and concludes with its attainment or discovery. A love story (Pretty Woman) starts with a chance encounter and culminates with a wedding proposal. A monster (Jaws) or horror (Halloween) film begins with the death of an innocent victim and ends with the actual or symbolic death of the person or thing...... until the sequel at least. (Didn't Jason die like ten times already?)
Entry 1
Option 1: The Great Train Robbery. The first western narrative ever made. The cast and plot were simple. A small group of bandits hold up a telegraph operator at a train station. They "convince" him to call to an oncoming train, and get it to stop. They restrain him and proceed to rob the train. After robbing the train, the bandits flee. In their hasty exit, they shoot a passenger in the in back. Next, the operator's daughter comes to his rescue. She frees him of his bonds and wakes him up.(he was knocked out) He leaves her and goes for help. He stumbles upon a shindig in progress and appeals to the men there to help him. They form a posse and hunt down the bandits. When they catch up to them, there is a big shootout. Evil is conquered. The bandits are all shot dead. The story is told using cross-cuts. There are multiple events happening at the same time in different locations. It was the first time someone shot at a man's feet to make him dance. The film ends with the bandit chief pointing his revolver and firing point blank into the camera. A great scene, but irrelevant to the plot.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)