Arguably one of the most defining characteristics of Third Cinema is the inspiration for audiences to take action on behalf of one cause. Frequently, the “cause” is usually some derivative of anti neo-colonialism.  In order to promote some sort of action, Third Cinema films often depict the struggles and poverty of third world countries while portraying larger more developed countries as evil dollar sign driven nations.  The latter often are depicted as taking advantage of the citizens of the lesser-developed nation. In general, stronger nations, such as the US are shown as brutal oppressive forces.  After viewing the film, “Perfumed Nightmare,” directed by Kidlat Tahimilk, I’m unconvinced that the film can be classified as Third Cinema. Through the use of humor, editing, and cinematography Tahimik uses “Perfumed Nightmare” as a film to educate the masses versus creating a bias resulting in action against social injustices.

So what exactly is Tahimik trying to “teach” his audiences? There are many instances in the film where a clear biased towards the Filipino people could be created. However in most of these situations humor was used to distract from the issue at hand, a nation being “bullied” by a bigger stronger nation.  For example when Kidlat discovers that the Supermarket has taken over the Four Seasons Market he begins to throw stones at the giant building.  Here is this tiny man throwing small stones at this giant entity. The cinematography emphasizes the comedic image. The camera is angled up making the Supermarket building seem larger than life and angled down at Kidlat making him seem puny. Kidlat appears as a small child who doesn’t get what he wants and in frustration throws rocks at an indestructible object. The whole scene is rather ridiculous, emphasizing the humor in the situation. This scene could have easily been used to show how the Supermarket or “progress” ruined the street marketers way of life and the struggle that followed for them. Instead the scene focuses on the humor of the situation, yes the Supermarket does appear as a bully but the fact that throwing rocks is Kidlat’s solution makes him seen just as discreditable.  Audiences are left feeling unsure whose side to take in the situation: the big Supermarket or the naïve little man? Instead what the viewer has gained is knowledge about the state of the world. The idea that “progress” or capitalism disrupts many peoples’ way of life.

Prior to the scene with the Supermarket battle the film shows many shots of people living content in the small town Kidlat grew up in. There are not if any scenes depicting oppression or a resistance to larger powers of any kind, common with Third Cinema films. Two scenes where one might claim that the US is portrayed as the villain or some sort of “big brother character” is when the scout masters all meet and the story of Kidlat’s father is told to him. Addressing the scenes in order, when the scoutmasters meet to discuss an issue the American scoutmaster claims that the US will be in complete control of the situation. If Kidlat were trying to highlight the US as a bullying nation the reaction of the other scoutmasters would be fear or submissiveness. This was not the case at all; in fact they laughed at the US scoutmaster for even suggesting such a thing and ran him out of the meeting. Again humor was inserted here as well, deflecting from the seriousness of the situation, the US trying to take control, what the audience just sees is this awkward lanky man trying to get through a muddy swamp like terrain. An awkward, lanky man being ran out of a meeting of men dressed in boy scout uniforms is not one that shouts “ evil oppressive bully.”

The second scene mentioned above is the one where kidlat finally learns the truth about his father he was shot by an American Soldier trying to cross a bridge.  That being said there is a magical element to the story, the dad apparently blew winds stronger than those of nature resulting in the American shooting him. The fact that there was a mythical element in this story makes it not only a little comical but viewers are uncertain whether or not to take the tale to heart. The mythology detracts from the seriousness of the situation, that his dad was murdered.  The editing of this scene also creates some ambiguity as to whether this is something to take lightly. As the story is being told the scene starts with the father crossing the bridge and realizing he can’t cross freely then cuts to a quick shot of someone smiling in the gap of a do not enter sign.  This goofy grin the audiences quickly see make this whole scene seem like a big joke.

Kidlat inserts this bit of humor to not alienate one side or the other. This makes me believe that he doesn’t want some sort of anti-colonialism uprising but more just educating his audiences on the circumstance at hand. Here is this young man living in a small Asian village who experiences the “world” for the first time. It is up to audiences what side they want to take or if any side, there is no push for one side or the other. This characteristic of the film forces me to believe that it is not a Third Cinema film.

The genre of psychological thrillers is not defined easily, however there are certain qualities within it that have come to signify the category. The film Peeping Tom was one of the first psychological thrillers, so it had a grand influence on what we now recognize as a psychological thriller. One of the staples to the category is it’s ability to push the viewer into empathizing with the “bad guy.” We spoke about this in class briefly during a discussion, and the consensus was that there were moments while watching the film when we felt bad for Mark, and that made us feel weird. This reaction is interesting because it heightens the power and ability of the psychological thriller. It moves the viewer to reach a new level of existential involvement because they go from viewing and analyzing the characters in the movie, to analyzing their own psyches.
The main character in this film, Mark, is a murderer. He is obsessed with filming women and then killing them. For this reason, the viewer knows that Mark is a villain in the story. Through the film we find that he was abused as a child, and we learn that it is because of his father that Mark experiences most of his struggles. When the viewer learns this, they start to view Mark as a victim. This juxtaposition of villain and victim begins to dictate how the viewer thinks about Marks character. After we know that Mark is acting this way because he has been trained to act like this, we start to feel for him. We become empathetic for his character because it starts to feel like maybe his emotional condition isn’t his fault. In any regard, we shift from feeling disgusted by his character to understanding his pain.
One scene which illustrates this juxtaposition of villain and victim, and the empathy that follows suit, is when Mark unveils his home movies to his love interest. The viewer sees this woman shift from fear to sorrow in a matter of seconds. This visual representation of empathy cues the viewer to embrace a similar feeling. From fear of the killer, to feeling sorry for his pain, there is an obvious shift that occurs and it is palpable to the viewer. This transition pushes the viewer to engage in a level of personal reflection and begin to ask themselves “is right to feel bad for the bad guy?” This confusion of what is “right” becomes a defining trait for this psychological thriller and for others that follow suit. There is a level of guilt that comes with feeling bad for a killer and that invites an internal reflection for the viewer.
Another scene that pulls the viewer into confusion about their empathy for Mark is in the final scene. Again the viewer knows that Mark is set up as the bad guy in this scene, but again they start to feel bad for him because he is also portrayed as a victim. In this particular scene, he is painted as a victim by his involvement with the police and by revealing that he is suicidal. As the viewer watches this scene, they start to feel uncomfortable by their inclination and desire to feel badly for a murderer.
The empathy that the viewer feels for the murderer is one of the first examples of how psychological thrillers can truly engage their audience. Peeping Tom is one of the first films to push its viewers to feel uncomfortable about their own mindset or psyche. This level of discomfort is now a staple for the category of psychological thrillers. Through the use of empathy, the user is almost forced to evaluate their own and emotions as well as those of the characters on the screen. This moves psychological thrillers to become even more engaging and introspective.

After our brief discussion in class about movie trailers, I wanted to delve deeper into the subject and learn more about the artistry and technical construction behind these previews.

For years, movie trailers have followed a remarkably consistent format. Often, these teasers are made before the film’s final cut, compiled by someone completely independent from the movie’s core production staff. Trailers conventionally include the use of montage editing, voiceover narration, “cast run” and stars, non-diegetic music, and genre cues. They follow a three-act structure starting with exposition, introducing conflict, and finally conclude by bringing in supporting characters to help solve the problem at hand, or end in a way that simply leaves the audience guessing. Under the regulations of the Motion Picture Association of America, no movie trailer can be longer than two minutes and thirty seconds. Of course, the trailers often highlight any awards the film has already won, and feature quotes of critics’ praise. These elements are all strategies carefully assembled to compel and entice the viewer, ensuring that he or she will return to the movie theater and purchase a ticket to the promoted film.

As a journalism major, I’ve spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how my passion for film and cinema will mesh with my learned skills in the world of public relations. Our brief overview in class helped me to come across the realization that it is in trailers that the film industry and the business of PR most closely intersect. This realization, and this course, has helped me to look at movie trailers in a completely new way.

I like to think of movie trailers as a mix between a headline and a press release. Its purpose is to spark interest and ensure a large audience for the final production, (or event, if we’re speaking in terms of public relations). Another purpose of trailers is to make viewers want to see the movie, which is similar to the aim of public relations, where we want to portray a good image of our client. Also called “previews,” trailers provide information on what the film is all about, and convincingly advertises the feature film that will be shown throughout theaters. A film trailer is used for promoting and previewing a movie, just as public relations professionals promote and showcase their clients.

Much like commercials, movie trailers are not just press. Instead, they are visual press releases for the masses.

Peeping Tom is a reflexion and a mise en abime about cinema and the process of recording sound and image.

The blind mother represent the sound aspect of the movie. But why using a blind character in a movie about voyeurism ? First, someone who is blind developpes other sensory capacities that someone who is able to see doesn’t have. The blind is capable to analyse and process any auditive informations. In that sense, the importance that sounds is going to have for the blind can be seen as auditive voyeurism. Sound is a communication vector that can be perceived by anyone. The blind is exploring every aspect of it whereas other people just assimilate the essential. For example, Helen’s mother knows when Mark is home and she also knows he is always in his screening room, watching his movies. She tells him : « I visit this room every night. The blinds always visit the rooms they live under »

The sound in Peeping Tom becomes complementary of the image. The blind character is here to add to the theme of voyeurism and penetrate in the voyeur’s intimate space itself in a way that he does not expect. In fact, Mark is focused on his visual sphere and do everything he can to hide his actions from the sighted. The sound for Mark will end up being  something that he does not control and what is going to give him away.

The confrontation between image and sound will reach its climax when Mark is projecting Vivian’s murder while Helen’s mother is in the room. The movie doesn’t have any sound, and us, spectators, are witnessing the horrible scene. We are between Mark and Helen’s mother. Mark see and act, the spectator observes, and the blind character questiones and is trying to guess what is going on.

Also, Mark’s father was extremely voyeur and Helen has a blind mother. They both appear as a sound/image complementary couple. The film is the setting of Mark and Helen’s meeting. What can happen when two people – which relation with two important senses were disturbed or even, perverted – meet?

8 ½ is a very dense film, and hard to understand. Fortunately this was the second time I’ve seen the film, and I picked up on a few nuances that I didn’t catch on my first go around. It’s a confusing film to process with dream sequences and flash backs, but these additions were very crucial to the films development. I thought the most profound dream sequence was the opening sequence of the film.

The opening scene of 8 ½ starts out with Guido in a dream sequence stuck in traffic in a tunnel bumper to bumper. Smoke starts to fill the car, as Guido try’s to escape but his car wont open. Guido starts to panic trying to break the windows of his car trying to get someone’s attention but everyone around him is just watching him struggle and suffer. At last Guido escapes his smoking car through the roof and begins to float out from the tunnel in gusts of fresh air, coming into the light. The next shot is of Guido flying through the clouds where he encounters briefly his huge unfinished structure for his new upcoming movie. The final shot of the sequence is a rope around Guido’s leg being pulled from the sky by his producers. Guido struggles to free himself from these restraints but is ultimately pulled to the ocean in which Guido then wakes from his dream state.

Guido’s opening dream sequence can be viewed as what he is longing for, his stressful career suffocating him and the harsh public opinion of his current film. One particular shot that interested me was the shot of everyone staring at Guido and a bus full of people pressed against the windows but only shown them from the neck down with their hands resting on the windows packed like sardines.  Fellini gives the illusion that we are looking at a group of headless passengers that signifies that these people are a zombie mass, not have any significant criticism to his work but just adding to the pressure to his unfinished work and mass that he feels is against him.

The quick glance of the unfinished tower is symbolic staple throughout the movie. It was interesting to note that he was flying above it signifying that this unfinished project isn’t a burden on him and carelessly flying through the air. When Guido is stressing about the film and is on site, the camera points up at the tower as a daunting ominous task and frames it as such.

Throughout the dream sequence the camera never once shows Guido’s face and keeps him particularly dark until he escapes his suffocating prison.  His escape from the tunnel resembles his death and resurrection, dying by the stress of his career and his overall unhappiness; he soon finds himself letting go and coming to an enlightened state. He would have stayed in this enlightened state if he was detached from his obligations from his film. The rope around his ankle controlled by the producers on the beach keeps him from his enlightenment.

This first sequence explains the whole movie in a matter of a few symbolic minutes. Not only that but it goes through what Guido really feels that he should be doing by relaxing and not working. It was all a matter of letting go of the stressful work and pressure of doing a project he doesn’t want to be doing. All the dreams foreshadowed or enlightened a certain aspect of Guido’s personal life that couldn’t be seen through his expressing and interacting with others, including his wife.

In his film Perfumed Nightmare, Kidlat Tahimik carefully stitched together a winding series of thought provoking images and turned them into a vehicle for his onscreen alter ego, who embodies the desire to witness the “progress” of the developing world. Tahimik’s direction is both poignant and surreal, speaking to the audience through metaphors that make us laugh as well as makes us think about how they relate to our own lives. Tahimik’s sense of humor and the bits of his personality he chose to showcase really made this film unique. His thoughtfulness paid off. I could sense how much care went into making this film for the right reasons, not to make money but to say something important about what radical imagination can teach us.

The film and its form is a story of morality and transformation, the way we harness our available resources towards certain change. The jeepney, a wartime vehicle introduced by the United States army, ended up being the most democratic mode of public transportation in the postwar Philippines. For Tahimik the jeepney is a metaphor that works on many levels as it travels with him from his home village to the streets of Paris. The jeepney represents cultural resourcefulness, a country’s ability to adapt and reuse. This idea of taking something from a darker period of history and turning it into something celebratory really resonated with me and made this one of my favorite films that we’ve watched so far.

The jeepney looks like junk. It is outdated and looks like it could break down at any moment, yet it represents the unique spirit of Tahimik’s community, and a culture’s capability to thrive. With Perfumed Nightmare, Tahimik pays tribute to the kitsch and thus balances his sharp critiques with an exuberance that tells us it is okay to laugh, to find the redeeming qualities in something that looks like junk, is fraying on the edges, but gets you from one place to another.

Although, Tahimik was disillusioned when he finally saw the developed world and how it sacrificed certain values, like traditional commerce being taken over by the supermarket, he made a film that floods this sacrifice with the rivers of possibility. He does resign as president of the Werner von Braun club, but maintains that he will continue to find his own way in life, to choose his own vehicle.

At the end of the film, he imagines the industrial chimney as a rocket ship, his own “bridge to the stars.” The last image is a stamp of him sitting on the detachable chimney flying towards the moon. We saw his frustration with the incinerators, but just like the jeepney, every scrap can generate value, can become a vehicle that crosses whatever bridge lies ahead.

Peeping Tom was the type of film that left me satisfied and hungry all at once. The main character, Mark Lewis, made me uncomfortable, suspicious, and completely relaxed all at once. The varying stages of emotion were created through Mark being a round character. As discussed in class, there was a lot of development and change in the character as the film progressed. The most relevant scene to look into Mark’s drastic change in persona was during the time spent with Helen, the female from downstairs. During the scene where she discusses the possibilities of her book and needing his help is where I found the most impactful setting to show Mark’s true dispositions and how he constantly battles his own struggle from being tested on by his father to see the psychology behind fear on the nervous system.

Mark acts very genuine and interested whenever Helen is present. He listens to her words in a much more attentive manor than when he is at work or talking to other people; his attention gets restricted very easily when he sees a victim he wishes to be infatuated with. During the scene of Helen sharing the idea of her book, his responsiveness is much more dramatized than he usually responds- in a dull, uninterested, almost insincere way. He quickly gets emotionally disturbed when she shares that the book relates to capturing images with a magical movie camera. His curiosity and interest in Helen quickly brings him back to his calm, involved self. However, that key point where he enters the darker side of his personality was a key moment for my understanding of his character. He is not often shown in such a genuine and interested state, so when the time came that he bounced back to being dark and unclear was a much more drastic switch that any other moment in the movie.

Once Mark regains his heightened stated of interest, Helen is the one who has a large switch in character. She suddenly gets concerned that she has asked too much of him, this is another moment in this film that captures their relationship and how she effects him. When Mark replies about the discussion of money and his payment not being important, he quickly dives into another tunnel of his inner-curiosity. I felt that this moment was a clear flashback of the trauma that he had been put through as a child by his father. The psychological testing left his emotions and interests calculated, so whenever something (Helen) took him to a new state, he did not know how to respond and closed up his shell, similar to a turtle, when things became too much for him to handle.
It was the creativity and ability to twist my feelings towards Mark that made this film resonate with me. There are many round characters that are still do not have enough variation to leave me interested. Mark, on the other hand, was a character that continued to drag my feelings from side to side. Once I thought I had him pinned and clearly decided that I did or did not feel sympathy for him, the film would throw a curve ball allowing him to creep back onto my good side. Marks constant battle of self-interest and experience with Helen continues to interest me, any film that can leave you questioning an opinion on a character weeks after I it… job well done.

Ben Wiley

Federico Fellini’s movie 8 ½ centers around a filmmaker name Guido. The narrative weaves in and out of reality and fantasies highlighting various situations occurring to Guido as well as displaying his intricate daydreams. Often the transition between reality and fantasy is blurry and difficult to distinguish. I believe Guido’s character is modeled after Fellini himself and this film is a portrayal of Fellini creative process. The majority of the film takes place at a spa where Guido is attempting to come up with his next big idea or his next film, he is at a moment where he has lost interest in his science fiction film and the progress on the film has become rather static. I will argue that the events, real and fictitious, that occur to Guido at the spa are metaphors for Fellini’s frustrating creative process.

One of the first fantasies the audience is exposed to is one of Guido’s nightmares.  Guido is floating off into the air only to be yanked back down to reality by his associates heckling him to get back to his film. This is what I would call a stress dream. Guido is at a point where he has no interest and no creative drive but is still feeling the pressure of his colleagues who, themselves, are also pressured to get the film done. This experience is certainly something that Fellini encounters. Failure and stress is a part of the creative process.

Throughout the film Guido is also constantly distracted and bombarded with random annoyances. His mind is enamored with women, both in reality and fiction, again. He is distracted by all the women around him but also drifts off into fantasies of his ideal women. However, even those fantasies end with disappointment. Part of the creative process is sporadic attention spans. When one loses interest in a project, just as Guido has, distractions come easily. This experience is also part of the creative process. When things are discouraging it is easy to let your mind wander anywhere but the project you are suppose to be working on.

Guido also seeks out advice from several people including a writer. Unfortunately, this advice only sparks negative memories in Guido. Even when he pursues positive endeavors to reignite his interest in his film it results in further discouragement. I believe this process is similar to one that Fellini himself experiences when developing his own movies.

However, despite all of these discouragements and disappointments the film ends with Guido coming up with a solution to his film, which ignites his interest yet again. Frustrations are part of the creative process. It takes severe determination to power through relentless difficulties and create a great project. 8 ½ is a film about filmmaking and Fellini has characterized the frustrations of his own creative process through Guido and his experiences while making a film.

I can relate to Fellini’s creative process. I am pursuing a job in a creative industry myself and I believe this industry is riddled with frustrations. This makes the creative industry incredibly difficult but, if you are able to overcome the frustrations, just as Guido did in the film, you will be rewarded and create something incredible.