The effectiveness of Man With a Movie Camera (1929), above the other films watched thus far, and above most films created in general, is the ability it has to invoke an authentic emotion in the viewer.

The cinematography is the initial aspect of the movie that is incredibly unique. Sergei Eisenstein in the Soviet Union originally theorized the Soviet Montage form of the expressionist (Avant Garde) film genre in the early 1920s, culminating in his movie Battleship Potempkin in 1925. Vertov’s (Man With a Movie Camera’s director) was influenced not only by this experimental art form of his surrounding society, but also of the emerging genre of documentaries in the early 20s, particularly those of “city symphonies,” such as Manhatta (1921) and Berlin (1927). (Platt, 04/07/14 and 04/09/14).

The history of the Soviet Union at the time reflected the Bolshevik revolution into the overtake of the government by the Lenin administration. The 1920s was determined the ‘Golden Age of Soviet Cinema,’ which was evident in Lenin’s decree of using cinema to disseminate communism propaganda. The potent aspect of Man With a Movie Camera is the fact that not only does Vertov show the reality of Modernism coming into play in the Soviet Union, but he also shows the emotion of the people behind that transition.

In the mise-en-scene, cinematography and editing aspects of form in the film, the city (which is actually two cities, but can be assumed to well-represent Moscow at the time) is portrayed as working well in the transition to modernity (industrialism), because there is neither destruction nor sadness portrayed. But what is effectively portrayed is the intensity of the transition through the fast shots of cinematography and the portrayal of the individuals of mise-en-scene. The cinematography is fast shots throughout the movie. A general feeling of anxiety is conveyed through this technique, which is one of the more effective ways in which this film exudes the emotion of the city at the time. Another aspect is the mise-en-scene, which is the layout of the scenes. This aspect of film form was a compelling way to show the contrast between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat at the time in the Soviet Union. The bourgeoisie were portrayed as relaxed, with almost a glowing characteristic to their costume and lighting in the film. In the actions of the scene, they were shot with medium shots displaying them getting made up or combing their hair, which conveys an emotion of relaxation. In a powerful contrast, the proletariat were shown in scenes of intensity, often with either close-up or high-angle, long shots showing them either working as fast as they can, with no emotion; or, in the latter shots, attempting to get something done (such as crossing the street to get somewhere immediate), but in an anxiety-provoking manner. This is incredibly effective by Vertov in showing the difference in emotion between classes of the Soviet Union at the time.

In this way, the technology of the modern age at the time is portrayed as almost something that is almost becoming a feeling organism of its own, but somewhere in between the two contrasting classes. The constant shots and scenes of rail cars seemingly about to crash but barely missing each other and the pedestrians and automobiles around convey a feeling of anxiety as well. However, the rail cars placement in the scene (mise-en-scene), as somewhat of a barrier that is necessary, but overwhelming to cross, conveys the hectic nature of the split in society at the time.

A last feature of note in the emotion of the film is in Vertov’s portrayal of himself. He is the “Man With a Movie Camera,” who is almost portrayed as the playful, yet serious figure who is attempting to show the pitfalls of the society attempting to modernize. He is portrayed as not so much in the background of society, though not attempting to be in the foreground. He is perhaps in that barrier described through the symbol of the rail car. He gives his point of view from the barrier, rather than from the bourgeoisies or the proletariats. This stance gives him power in the, what could arguably be a slight narrative in this identified experimental, Avant Garde, and “city symphony” film, which allows him to convey what he believed in (communism), but also gave him an omniscience and objectivity in conveying the emotions and prospectives of life in ‘modernity’ in the 1920s Soviet Union.

Singin’ in the Rain is one of the most successful musicals ever created in film. It is a beloved classic, released in 1952, during the “Golden Era” of cinema, and directed by Stanley Donen and the ever-talented Gene Kelly, who stars as Don Lockwood in the film.

I believe one of the most important scenes in the film that shapes the entire story is Don Lockwood’s first meeting with Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds). Don Lockwood is a cocky but hugely famous Hollywood silent film star. After Don’s most recent movie release, he and his talented best friend, Cosmo Brown (Donald O’Connor), are leaving the theatre and their vehicle breaks down. As the scene progresses, Lockwood is trying to avoid his fans and ends up jumping into a random vehicle. This is a huge turning point in the movie. Don scares Kathy, but he is in shock that she seems to have no idea who he is until she tries to turn him into a police officer on the side of the road. Even after she is told that he is the great “Don Lockwood” she still seems unimpressed by him and this bothers Don. As a newly relaxed Kathy continues to drive, Don is attracted to her and tries to sweet talk, but Kathy isn’t having it. She insults him, saying that he is not a real actor and that his films are all the same and that she is a real actor because she talks and acts out her emotions on stage. “If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all right?” Kathy states to an ego-bruised Don Lockwood about his films. Kathy says she’s a stage actress, which starts an argument between herself and Don, and she drops him off at an after party, both of them fuming mad at the other. This develops a relationship between the two, where they both think that they can’t stand each other, but you can see the attraction and confusion between the two. Kathy is trying to save face and make it seem like Don is not as important as he thinks he is because she refuses to be like every other women or fan and fawn over him. Even though he tries to hide it, Don’s ego was badly bruised and he lost a lot of confidence during his argument with Kathy about acting, making him question his abilities as a performer, entertainer, and an actor. This shapes the story because he moves on from this trying to think of ways to regain confidence within his work and it makes him more grounded and brings his head down to earth again. Without knowing it, Kathy has changed Don’s view of himself and that alters his goals on what he really cares about and what he really wants to pursue with his career. Kathy brings out the best in him, and we learn at the end of the film that they both bring out each other’s true talent/calling in the industry. This scene shapes the direction of the rest of the film.

I chose to write on “Singin’ in the Rain”.   The scene I chose to write on takes place towards the end of the movie when Don is pitching the idea for his upcoming “talkie” movie.  I chose to write on this scene because I think that it is very unique and different than traditional Hollywood scenes.  The first thing I would like to talk about is how long the scene is.  The scene lasts for about 15 minutes.  What is unique about this length of this scene is that at first glance it has almost little effect on the development of the narrative.  The scene is simply placed in front of the audience purely for entertainment.  The scene features Don dancing, singing, and performing as he tries to make it big in New York.  Last Wednesday’s class (4/16) we discussed how rare it was for a scene to keep an audience entertained for so long without building on the narrative.  Many students agreed with this and thought that the scene didn’t contribute to the narrative arc of the film.

I disagreed with the majority of the students’ thoughts and thought that the scene played an extremely significant part in the development of the story in the film.  I think that the scene is Don’s self-reflection on his career in show business. I also think that this scene allows the audience to understand Don on a deeper level and see his opinion on the decisions he’s made throughout his life.   This scene shows the character development Don has made throughout the movie.  In Don’s idea for the movie he starts out signing “Gotta dance” and performs dancing moves for agents as he tries to make it into show business.  This scene mimics Don’s actual start in show business and he took up all and any stunt double jobs to further his career.  As Don’s movie idea continues he is seen at a big time party with lots of important people. This scene shows the perks of show business.  One of the main reasons Don wanted to be in movies, for the fame.   Don is later turned down by the dancing woman because he isn’t wealthy.  Giving him yet another reason to pursue fame and wealth.   As Don’s film idea progresses he ends up becoming famous and ends up still not getting the dancing woman.  Don’s film idea ends with him in a look of disappointment until another young character is shown dancing and singing the same line “Gotta dance” that Don was singing when the scene started.  The young man makes Don happy again and inspires him to keep dancing. I thought that this scene showed the audience what Don finally realized is important in his life.  That the fame he thought he wanted wasn’t important and the thing that really mattered was doing what he loved to do, dancing.  I really enjoyed watching this movie.  I thought it was refreshing to see a movie that was simply a fun watch and didn’t have a strict agenda they were trying to push.

When we as an audience are first introduced to Don Lockwood, he is portrayed as a sort of typical Hollywood movie star. He has fancy clothes, a nice car, a big ego, and a smug attitude. Though it may be tempting to take this characterization at face value, we are exposed to many more aspects of his character throughout the movie. The scene features Don and his best friend, Cosmo, along with a speech therapist. In this scene, we see Don and Cosmo break out into a tap dancing number while Don is practicing his enunciation with the therapist.

As with their other numbers, the focus of this scene is the antics of Don and Cosmo and their synchronized routine. As far as the storyline goes, this scene doesn’t seem to serve much purpose. Other than simply knowing that Don is participating in speech therapy as well as Lena, why should a dance number be included? What purpose does it serve in the movie as a whole? I think that this scene in particular gives some indication as to the purpose of the musical aspects of the film exactly because of this reason, because the scene really serves no other purpose other than to give exposure to the characters.

Since plot-wise it isn’t important, we have to analyze how this scene might contribute to our perception of the characters. As opposed to the professional, sleek and egotistical Don that we are introduced to in his opening scene, this Don is dressed more casually, speaks more casually, and probably most importantly, acts in a fun and excitable way. He is eager to ditch the enunciation practice and excited to dance around the room and play around with the speech therapist. This Don is comedic and likeable, something that the big-name-Hollywood-star Don was not.

On the way to discovering the purpose of this scene, I think we also have to consider the placement of the musical number. It’s included in the middle of a scene that, at the start, seemed to be focused on Don’s professional life as an actor. He is working to improve his on-screen skills, and Cosmo interrupts with a dance number that has Don smiling and having fun; something we don’t see him do when he was practicing his enunciation. From this I think we can gather some ideas about what Don really enjoys doing, what he is passionate about. He sort of half-heartedly repeats what the therapist gives him, but goes all out in this rather silly dance with Cosmo. By placing the number in the middle of a more professional setting, as is done with many of the other dance numbers, I think we can see how Don’s desire to dance and sing and have fun is boiling over into his daily life and job.

Through all of this, I think that we can see what the actual purpose of this musical number, and perhaps all of the musical numbers, is. It’s a sort of outpouring of Don’s true personality, wants, and dreams. It’s a depiction of what he might have been like had his career not been swept up in the silent-film movement. We know that dancing and singing was something that Don had done and enjoyed before, and I think these musical numbers serve to show us as viewers that this isn’t a past that Don wants to leave behind. They are a glimpse into his true character, a side that he is unable to show in his professional life.

Suzanne Hutchinson

Singin’ in the Rain directed by Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly delivers all aspects of a successful Hollywood movie musical while poking fun at Hollywood’s difficulties in adapting to the advent of the “talking picture.” I have chosen to do a close reading of the opening “red carpet” scene through which the film makers cleverly tell the audience what they should anticipate is to come; it is a “teaser” in terms of setting up the drama of the story, the relationship of the characters and a movie musical’s essential elements, song and dance – a lot for one scene to achieve.
It begins by having fun with the idea of a movie premiere. The fans screaming for fictional movie stars arriving on the red carpet and the movie stars themselves, all are portrayed as broad stereotypes – almost cartoon. Even our initial protagonists, Don Lockwood (Gene Kelley) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) arrive both dressed all in white symbolizing they are the stars of this premiere, but this color co-ordination also emphasizes they are a couple. However, when interviewed on the red carpet we can immediately see that all is not what it seems and this phrase, “all is not what it seems” echoes throughout the movie right up to the finale when Debbie Reynolds’ character is revealed as the voice of Lina Lamont.
This “teaser” element of the opening sequence is cleverly integrated into Don’s interview on the red carpet. While Don tells us of his classical training and early stage career we see the truth depicted in a series of cameos where Don and Cosmo progress though their early careers playing in bars and obscure Vaudeville joints. The film makers use these cameos to give the audience a preview of the singing, dancing and comedy that is to come with Gene Kelly (Don Lockwood) and Donald O’Connor (Cosmo) demonstrating why they were considered two of the finest song and dance men in Hollywood. The audience is deftly warned that if Don is lying about his past, is he also lying about his relationship with Lina Lamont? The film makers have now introduced the underlying drama of their story.
Much is said about the characters in this opening scene before they even speak, (Lina Lamont says nothing in the opening scene. In a story about movie stars of the silent era making the transition to the “talkies,” the film makers cleverly prevent Lina Lamont from speaking until that critical moment when the maximum impact of her horribly grating voice can be unleashed on the audience). Let’s consider the positioning of Don and Lina when they first step out of their Limo: Lina is on the right of screen and Don is on the left. As they approach the interviewer they nimbly adjust positions so that Lina remains on the far right, Don is located in the middle with the announcer and Cosmo stands on the far left. Their positioning may not seem that important at first, but it is. Most movies tend to follow a convention where the bad guys are introduced on the right of screen while the good guys are introduced from the left. If this convention holds for “Singing in the Rain” then Lina is a bad guy and Cosmo is a good guy. Don is in the middle with the announcer, in neutral territory – the audience will have to make up their own minds about Don’s character, (Were it not for Cosmo’s presence and the obvious respect that Cosmo and Don have for each other – clearly seen in Don’s interview – the audience might find Don too dislikeable from the outset). This foreshadowing of characters may not seem important at first, but if the convention holds true, then by the end of the opening sequence a subconscious opinion of each character has been planted in the audience’s mind.
Opening a movie with a “teaser” has become synonymous today with many blockbuster action movies; the opening sequence of a James Bond movie is almost a short movie in itself as is the opening sequence of “Singing in the Rain.” All is not what it seems in this opening scene, but an awful lot is happening.

Dziga Vertov’s Man With A Movie Camera is one of the oddest films that I have ever seen. I chose to write about this movie for the first blog because I thought is was an interesting story. The movie begins in a movie theater and is shot as if the movie theater is preparing itself for the people to watch a movie. The seats come down by themselves as the projector operator readies the film. This makes it seem as though Vertov wanted to represent the theater or film as being alive and an interactive part of human life. This movie was very hard to follow from the very beginning. It seemed to have no real rhyme or reason to it. About fifteen minutes in I found myself trying to find any meaning at all in any of the scenes that I saw. I noticed that there were quite a few scenes that depicted the camera as being alive. The lens is also depicted with an eye overlaid. This made me think that the director wanted to show the camera as having a life of its own. The stop motion parts of the film showed the camera moving itself around and setting itself up. I liked to think throughout the movie that the camera was looking out by itself and capturing all aspects of daily life in the city. It collected scenes from all walks of life from old people to young people.  I didn’t really enjoy the movie. It was rather long and the shots didn’t seem to have anything to do with each other. After trying to find something to interpret for the entire length of the movie I couldn’t find anything. Perhaps that is what the movie is supposed to be. Maybe it’s not supposed to be interpreted. I recall that it isn’t supposed to have a story either, but I also think it is just a random film. I couldn’t tell what any of the movie meant other than for some reason the director wanted me to look at the camera as having a life of its own. I don’t think I would recommend this movie to many people. It seems like it has remained “popular” for so many years because no one else has quite figured it out either. Just because a film is different does not make it good. I feel like many people in the past have regarded the movie as ground breaking and innovative because they didn’t really get it. It is easy to label something, as being “new” because new doesn’t have to have a category. You don’t have to know what it meant as long as you can say it was different. I think that is an injustice done to future movie enthusiast by the critics of the past.

“Singin’ In the Rain” (1952) directed by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen features Gene Kelly himself as the film’s main character, Don Lockwood. Don is an actor who has a deep passion for music and dance. He begins to question his ability to act after he and Lina release their first ever “talkie” film. It sucked. Thanks to the help of his good friend, Cosmo, and his love interest, Kathy, Don rediscovers his desire to incorporate dance and song into his career. This realization facilitates a change in Don’s character throughout the film, proving him to be a dynamic character.

As seen in the first scene of the movie, Don fabricates the truth of how he achieved his success as an actor. He made it sound like he came from a more prestige upbringing than he did in reality. This scene also shows Don pretending to enjoy Lina’s company, and allowing the crowd to assume they are a couple of some sort. Don does these things, in part, because he is so worried about his image as an actor.

Don’s persona begins to change as soon as he first encounters Kathy Selden, an aspiring performer. He is immediately intrigued by Kathy’s lack of interest in his profession — this is far different than how most women react at the sight of Don throughout the film. Kathy told Don plainly what she thought about acting, and this caused Don to question his talent.

From this point forward, Don’s role as an actor transforms. After discovering that the “talkie” film he and Lina acted in together was terrible, Cosmo and Kathy encouraged Don to incorporate music and dance into the movie — his true talents. They schemed up a plan of how this would transpire and decided to ask the director. His approval marked the beginning of a new career for Don, Kathy, and Cosmo.

The change in Don’s profession changed not only his line of work, but also the way he views himself as an entertainer. Don knew in the beginning of the film that people saw him as an actor; but he felt deep down that music and dance were his true callings. If it weren’t for Kathy’s honest opinion, Don may have never reconsidered his work.

It is clear to see in the beginning of the film that Don is very concerned with his image and what the fans think about him. However, towards the end of the film he doesn’t care at all. He knows that his entire career will change if the truth about Lina will be announced to the public, but he doesn’t care. He knows that fans may not love him as much if they find out about Kathy, but he allows their relationship to be seen openly. He also knew that he was taking a risk by incorporating music and dance into his films and creating musicals — but he did it anyway. All of these changes to Don’s character throughout the film indicate that Don is a dynamic character.

Singin’ in the rain harbors one of the most famous and common friendship dichotomies seen in storytelling: the dichotomy between the famous ‘popular’ friend, and the lesser noticed yet still loyal and important ‘sidekick’ friend. This type of friendship really resonated with me because for most of our lives I have felt that my best friend and I have had a relationship like this as well.
To put it into context, Don and Cosmo are best friends. They have grown up together and worked to get to where they are today in show business together. However, Don is in the spotlight, and while Cosmo is there too, he is not as famous or adored as the star of the show, Don. The two remain fast friends but Cosmo plays a supporting role in the friendship while Don seems to take precedence. Throughout the film Cosmo is selfless and a brilliant help to Don putting Don and Don’s career ahead of himself and his own. Don is the beloved hero of the story but upon deeper inspection Cosmo is actually the driving force behind Don’s success. Cosmo celebrates with Don and never displays jealousy when Don gets the girl, the fame, and the adoration. He is a truly loyal friend. This is not to say that Don is not a good friend or that Don is taking advantage of Cosmo. Don remains a great friend to Cosmo and it is doubtful that Cosmo would have gotten to where he is without Don. In this type of friendship dichotomy there is a bold hero and a helpful sidekick. In order for the arrangement to work each must accept their roles and fulfill them while also enjoying and gaining something from the friendship.
Don and Cosmo’s friendship really resonated with me because I too have had a friendship like this with my best friend. In recent years we have become more equal in our partnership but when we were younger, the bold hero/helpful sidekick dichotomy was undeniable. My friend was outgoing and friendly, she had a huge group of friends and was one of the ‘cool kids’ in middle and high school. I however was very shy and introverted. I had very few friends and definitely did not qualify as ‘cool’. Every activity that we did together she was the star, the one that got noticed and adored and I was also included but by association. Like Cosmo, I was still there, just not in the spotlight. I was always behind the scenes, there to support her and guide her when she needed it while forging my own different path for myself. But also like Don and Cosmo we have always been best friends. She is a great friend to me and always has been, much like Cosmo and Don. And even though at times I have been urged to be careful and warned that our relationship is one sided, we are best friends, always have been, and always will be. The people who say these things do not understand a friendship like this. They look at it negatively, as if the sidekick is being taken advantage of and the hero is self-centered. But the key to understanding this dichotomy is to understand and accept that neither person is better or worse in the relationship, simply that both are very different and thus play different roles.

I chose to write about “Man With A Movie Camera” because it kept my full attention strictly through visuals. The true significance behind the film was something very special and well thought out, however, the simplistic style of the film made me realize that the norm of today’s appreciation for movies comes from the end product- not the moments caught off stage during the creation. When something has been chopped, screwed, and fit together to make the perfect piece I feel like it loses a lot of the true character behind the film because of the generation. “Man With A Movie Camera” highlighted more of the construction of the film than the actual footage that was captured. The dependency and advancement of machines and labor that was exposed in the film could not have been so impactful if it did not hold such raw footage to give the true meaning. The camera was used as a lens to view either another look at the real world, or almost an engendered world by bringing realization of the mechanics behind daily life. I felt that this enabled the viewer to take out anything from political motives to enabling them to question the society they are involved in.

The sequence in the film where the shots are darting back and forth between a man playing music using utensils and wine bottles to the woman’s smiling face was a scene that stumped me for a while. I am still unsure on how I feel about it, but the chaos was interesting and continues to put me in a trance as the shots switch back and forth and then slowly blend into one experience through the editing techniques used. I believe that in today’s films someone would manufacture such a scene in a very different way- the raw cuts between clips allowed a viewer to get lost in it by themselves, not forced by overly smooth transitions and expectations of the upcoming scene.

The section that follows with the tripod moving in a robotic way with the woman appearing the watch was one of my favorites because it went along with the simple style while capturing a brilliant, futuristic instant. The personality of this film was perfectly depicted in this scene- it delivered emotion through two different scenes coming together, while still making you curious about both. The twist between the lady and audience “watching” the tripod moving about in a machinelike manor left me thinking about what she was really viewing when her clip was originally captured. Mixing and matching the scenes together like this left the viewer caught up in the moment while still enjoying the grand scheme of the film. I had to re-watch the film before I could really begin to grasp everything that was going on. The enjoyment I received from all of the clips was because in a chaotic, mysterious way they formed together like a puzzle while still maintaining their own personality; most importantly, without having words spoken at you to assist in understanding or meaning.

Using new editing techniques and concentrating on the behavior of the film, more than posing for the perfect appearance, is what brought these pieces together in a way that I found to be the most interesting thus far. Just like the closing scene of this film, it is important to consider putting your eyes through the opposite side of the camera to capture the true meaning of the scene.

For my first post, I am going to do a close reading into the first scene introducing the main character, Don Lockwood in, “Singin’ in the Rain.” Instead of just talking about how the scene was shot, I will take a look at how his character is beginning to developed in his first scene.

From the beginning, we are left in suspense for the arrival of a big star, and when Don Lockwood shows up, the crowd goes wild. This alone shows the viewer how big of a star Don really was, but it wasn’t until his interview that we really could begin to understand how he got there.

When Don first gets asked to tell his story, he pretends to not want to answer. Not only does he not seem very convincing, but he ends up giving in, in a matter of seconds, looking eager to tell his story. As he begins, we are lead into a montage of his past. By watching flashbacks from a childhood dance academy to music school, the audience is able to see how much work Don actually put into his career. However, the lighthearted nature of the scenes we watched let us know more about Don as a character and show how truly enthusiastic he is about what he does.

These scenes also begin to develop Don’s relationship with his best friend, Cosmo Brown, and his less than ideal relationship with Lina Lamont. Wit this, we see more about Don’s Life in a matter of minutes than I have ever seen in earlier movies. Even in, “Casablanca,” the character development takes place over a much longer period of time.

A good thing to also keep in mind is that, “Singin’ in the Rain,” is actually a satire on the development of the film industry as a whole. This could very well have been one of the reasons that Don’s Character is thrown at the audience so abruptly. Although it may have been used as a part of the “joke,” I can’t help but be kind of impressed in how well they pulled it off.