Summer begins the season for the action packed blockbusters, which is now among us. The most recent film that opened up in theaters this weekend was X-Men: Days of Future Past which is the 5th installment for the Marvel X-Men films, but it is the sequel to the prequel X-Men: First Class. (Confusing, I know.) So far out of all of the X-Men films, I would consider it the best one out of the previous five. I highly recommend that people go see this especially if you are a fan of superhero films. It follows the typical Hollywood blockbuster model by using A-list actors, visual effects, a lot of action scenes, as well as saturation booking and a lot of advertising. The film also presents a darker, more serious tone than the previous X-Men film, which makes it stand out from the others because it allows the audience to connect with the characters on a deeper level than in the other more fun-filled X-Men films. Days of Future Past still has the light-hearted humor to keep the film fun.
One thing that stood out to me, as far as form goes, was the cinematography of the film. Action films are known for their fast pacing and quick edits, but the cinematography seemed to have accelerated the momentum of the film. The camera was constantly moving. The camera was always panning in one direction or another, zooming in or out, and would change views and angles quite frequently. The audience is already trying to keep up with the action sequences and the quick shots, but then they have to keep up with camera and where it is guiding their view next. Even during the scenes where two people are talking, the camera would pan slightly to the right to move the person slightly to the right of the screen, then cut to the second person in the conversation and would do the same thing. One scene I remember in particular was in the beginning when it takes places in the dystopian future. The camera is trying to display the desolate world that the humans and mutants are a part of now by focusing on the rubble in a destroyed city. The camera slowly plans, but it pans in two different directions in one shot. The camera pans in what can be described as a backwards ‘L’ shape: it slowly goes from top to bottom, but only by a few degrees then pans right to left while focusing on someone’s feet and following them as they walk across the rubble. This shot stood out to me because it is not very often that the camera moves in different directions in one shot, but it is only an example of how the camera moved and kept moving throughout the film to enhanced the action scenes and added motion to the scenes without action. The cinematography kept the audience (at least me) engaged and alert throughout the film.
In X-Men: Days of Future Past, develops the characters that have been in the films since the beginning even more as well as the new group of characters from the first prequel. More is at stake for the lives of mutants in this film. I definitely recommend that people go to find out.

The film 8 ½ was a captivating story told from a director’s point of view about his struggle to convey his story the way he wants to tell it. The lines of reality and fantasy are blurred throughout this film while Guido is telling his story. It is difficult for the audience to distinguish whether the scene is actually happening, if it is an event that occurred in Guido’s past, or if it is a fantasy of his. One thing that really stood out in this film was the cinematography. The cinematography used in 8 ½ helped create the disillusionment depicted in the film seamlessly transitioning between reality and fantasy by using imaginative camera angles.
Throughout the film, the scenes will alternate between reality and fantasy but without warning which makes it difficult for the audience to understand what is really happening and what is imagined. One technique that is used in some of the scenes or transitions is the camera filming from Guido’s point of view by becoming his eyes. At this point, the audience is able to see the world through his eyes. For some scenes, this marked a transition from reality to fantasy or vice versa. An example of this occurred in the opening scene. The film starts out in a parked traffic jam inside of one of the vehicles. The camera is not Guido’s eyes just yet, but focuses on the back of his head so the audience can see him as well as what he is seeing. Guido slowly looks from the left to the right to notice all of the people staring at him, but while he is turning slowly the camera pans left to right to make it seem like the audience is looking with Guido. He then has a panic attack and gets out of his car to escape the traffic and the people, and at this point the camera presenting Guido rather than being Guido. He escapes watching eyes and then floats away which is when the camera becomes Guido’s eyes and the audience is looking down from his point of view in the sky. He literally falls back to reality and the camera is moves from Guido’s point of view to showing him from a medium distant shot leaving the audience questioning whether if part of what just happened was real or if what they are watching now is real. This is one example of the camera blurring the lines, yet creating the transition between reality and fantasy.
The camera may suggest the transition between Guido’s imagination and his reality, but it does not occur for all transitions and it is still difficult at points to understand what is really happening and what is not. The camera provides the audience access to the world that no one but Guido can access. The point of view angle is just one of many techniques the camera uses to provide the uniqueness to 8 ½ and to blur the lines of reality and fantasy as well as shift the audience between the two worlds.

For extra credit, I attended the “Art for Endangered Species” forum at the Cinema Pacific event a few weeks ago. Creators of wildlife films presented clips from their films then discussed some certain aspects of the clips or provided background information. Deke Weaver and Vanessa Renwick both presented their films that feature endangered animals and their mission to help spread the word about those animals. I was unable to attend the actual film, but the clips presented during the forum were still pretty powerful and provided me with an idea of what the full length documentaries entailed.
Deke Weaver presented clips of his films for various species, such as elephants, chimpanzees, and wolves, as well as footage from live productions he puts together to represent the species. He expresses his message through live performance and interaction with the animal’s habitat more than film. Weaver tries to focus on multiple species instead of just one. He instills the use of humans dressed as the animals for the performances which creates an anthropomorphic element to the experience. In the “Wolf” clip the performers acted like wolves at first, but then began dancing and acting out old fables. I am not sure if the anthropomorphism used in the performances helped the audiences relate with the so-called wolves or helped them become more engaged with the performance. It did not help me create an emotional connection to the film or the performance. I felt it was out of context and a bit strange, but hopefully the live audience was able to relate to it a lot better than I was able to. Although I feel as if the film clip does not do Weaver’s production justice. He wants to create an impactful experience for the audience to remember and hear what he has to say about the endangered species to raise awareness.
Vanessa Renwick expresses her message through her film “Hope and Prey” which focuses on how a group of wolf experts found and basically hunted down wild wolves in Canada to relocate them to a safer environment in the United States. Her clip has more human interaction with the species than Weaver’s clips did. Her whole project is based off of the humans coming to the rescue to save the wolves which could be considered invasive or admirable. The intentions behind it are admirable, but the method is very disturbing. The entire process was hard to watch. It shows a warehouse of drugged unconscious wolves all lined up while some were blind-folded. The camera focuses on the tag that labeled them as “Live Animal” to show that the wolves were just unconscious, not dead. The fact that they had to emphasize that point already shows that the process is disturbing. The experts were measuring their teeth and sticking their hands up the wolves’ butts for stool samples for reasons that were unclear. I do not think those steps were necessary in order to relocate the wolves, but I am not exactly an expert either. After that, it shows the experts putting the wolves in tiny kennels when they are done examining them and can finally be taken out to the wild. There was one shot where the camera zoomed in on a wolf standing in the kennel, but focused on its eyes which seemed to portray sadness and fear. These scenes in particular question whether what they are doing is intrusive or admirable. It is difficult to tell how the wolves feel, but it does not seem enjoyable for them. At the same time, the wolf population has increased exponentially in the United States after this project according to Renwick.
“Art for Endangered Species” was very interesting and insightful. The clips presented elicited emotions about the species. While some of the clips were hard to watch, but pretty sure that was the point. I think I would have gotten more out of the forum if I was able to attend the screenings of the films prior to the clips and discussion.

Out of the three films watched in class so far, Man with a Movie Camera (1929) stands out with its experimental and creative editing. Editing is expected to be fluid and unaware to the audience, while also creating and enhancing the storyline. Dziga Vertov uses montage editing by having quick cuts and short scenes while juxtaposing various people and objects through the short and rapid scenes to tell the story of day in the life of someone living in the Soviet Union. Montage editing implies that the objects are related or meaningful by being juxtaposed with one another. One sequence in particular was when Vertov displayed the different angled close-ups of the woman lying in bed, but then interrupted the scene with shots of homeless people sleeping in public places around the city and then cut between to the two. This made the audience infer that there was a connection between the woman and the homeless people, possibly to portray an aspect of the different lifestyles from people of different classes. The editing alone creates this assumption.

Man with a Movie Camera goes against the traditional movie making features by not using actors, a script, dialogue, or a blatant storyline. Vertov relies on the editing to tell his story and express his ideologies. He edits shots of people working, showing emotions, and machines and gears which can be interpreted in various way. I interpret that as people are supposed to come and work together to make sure things are working and running well. Another aspect could be how the people in the Soviet Union are adapting and responding to industrialization. The concepts are presented through his editing for the audience to interpret however they want without having actors present the ideas or deliberately state the opinions of the director.

The film was released only four years after Buster Keaton’s Sherlock Jr. (1924) and there is a great difference between the two films’ editing styles. Sherlock Jr. uses longer scenes with still camera angles which create a slow tempo and does not present as much ambiguous juxtaposition. Man with a Movie Camera uses shorter scenes with more experimental camera angles and shots which create a faster tempo, and uses the juxtaposition of the objects presented in the scenes to express the ideas of the film. This is also a very different style from Singing in the Rain, which uses a similar style to Sherlock Jr. with the longer shots and not as quick-paced editing. Man with a Movie Camera is innovative by using editing styles that stand out from the rest in ways that are still impressive today. In the beginning of the film, it states how it is an “experiment” and a successful one at that. It has had a great influence on editing in the film industry and the concept of montage editing. By breaking from the usual archetypes of filming making by even showing the editing process emphasizes how instrumental it was to forming the film in order to create an impact. The audience was left to interpret the juxtaposed images for themselves to decipher what Vertov was attempting to express through his film.