The movie Perfumed Nightmare is a great example of third cinema in modern filmmaking. From ideas of cultural contrast to guerilla filming techniques, Kidlat Tahimik uses this idea of “Third Cinema,” to make a film that touches on the class divide between third and first world countries, and the massive divide between the Philippines and other first world countries.

Setting the smaller details aside, we can look at the blatant examples of contrasting classes and cultures that Kidlat shows us. The first one coming to mind being the amount of bridges that he finds in France. When Kidlat first arrives in this more technologically advanced country, we watch as the simple tools like an automatic door to an escalator amaze him; tools that we take for granted in our everyday lives. This alone would not be significant if it were not for the background that we get on the lives of the people in Kidlat’s village beforehand.

Another “Third Cinema” aspect of this relationship between the people of the Philippines and their colonizers is the business that they have made converting the old army jeeps from the war into taxis and a means of making a living for Kidlat. It is interesting to think that his entire livelihood is dependant on this old jeep that once belonged to the “colonizers” of the Philippines. Without this relationship, Kidlat wouldn’t have a job and there would be no foundation for the movie.

The third reason that I think that this represents a “Third Cinema” style is its lack of a three-act structure. I don’t know about everyone else, but I was completely lost for a majority of the film. It wasn’t until Kidlat made it to France that I could really see the contrast between cultures and begin to see the point that Kidlat Tahimik was trying to make. I actually found the lack of structure interesting, because I was looking into each scene more closely to try and find a way to tie it into the rest of the film. It made me really analyze what was going on, and what Kidlat was trying to show with the different depictions of his culture.

The scene within this unorthodox structure that I found the most interesting was the circumcision scene. Knowing that Kidlat has a western education, I think that he used this scene purposely for its shock value. Something that is scene as a pathway to becoming a man in his culture seems ridiculous to us. I don’t think that he added it so much as to fit within the act structure, but rather knew the reaction that we would have to it and used strategically for that reason, again adding to this “Third Cinema” style of filmmaking.

Overall, I thought that movie was interesting and unique in its structure. Learning more about Kidlat actually helped me understand why he may have structured the film in that way. I think that he was more than anything trying to show the major divide in cultures and technology between the Philippines and the western world, and he did a great job of doing it.

When I watched the 8 1/2 in the class, I, actually, was really disappointed in myself because I couldn’t catch that film’s concept as well as keep up with that story at all at that time. There are huge amount of dialogue and also too many mixtures of real, memory, and illusion which were inserted suddenly to each other. While those features, in usual, work as help for audience to understand the film, I, this time, felt that I was totally betrayed by them. After watching this film again and again later, however, I abruptly come up with one clue which helps us to appreciate such a most difficult and challenging film, that is “an action of the time when you are distressed.”
First, it might be true that, when people face difficulties and feel distressed, they would often try to escape in the memory or illusion to neglect those difficulties. While watching the film, I was so much confused by the large number of mixture of real, memory, and illusion, for example, the real of making film, memory of Saraghina, and illusion of a harem or grand final. However, those confusing mixtures could be appreciated if you remind the clue “an action of when you are distressed.” Let’s imagine the situation you confront to the difficulty like doing homework. Then, people might realize that they can’t stop recalling the memory or imagining unless the difficulty is so exciting to them. In the film, making the film is such a difficulty for Guido. So he escapes that difficulty not only physically (go away from them who force him to make it) but also mentally.
Second, it also seems somewhat true that, when people face difficulties and feel distressed, there would be full of incoherent talks and thoughts. One another fact I realized as I watch the film was that there were so many dialogues in it and, yet, that I, still, couldn’t keep up with the story. In usual, the dialogue seems to work as a guidance of the story for example by explaining what they do next, why they think so, or why that happened. In this film, however, actor/actress, especially Guido, tell a lot about not kind of explanation or description of the situation but what they are thinking at that time in incoherent way. Therefore, even though they use many word to describe their thoughts, those don’t dedicate to understand the story effectively and, so, it makes this film difficult to appreciate.
In conclusion, through watching this film again and again, I realized that how my way to appreciate the films is stuck in narrow style. When I watch films, I always appreciate it by follow its story in each situation thorough actor/actress’s dialogues which explain or describe the situation explicitly. However, this film completely rejects such a way and forces me to appreciate through whole keyword, like “distress” in this film. After I realize it, this film totally changed its appearance and I could accept such complex mixtures of real, memory, and illusion, and a large number of dialogues.

First off, I want to say that I was not expecting the main character Mark to be this killer who wants to see the reactions of women right before they are about to die.  But Mark throughout the movie starts to be pictured as this creepy and mysterious guy who hides up in his room making film all the time.  But I personally think that deep down inside that he is actually a caring person.

The first thing we can notice about Mark is that he always has his camera with him.  This is significant because he uses the camera whenever there are women around him.  When he was taking pictures of the models in the bedroom, he was very eager to film the red headed women.  The scenes he films can also portray Mark as a mysterious man.  For instance, he films the police investigating the women he has killed.  To me, that seems a little weird to be filming the women he just killed.  Another thing that he does that might seem a little creepy is that he makes his film in this dark and hidden room.  It might be coincidence that this room just so happens to be a dark room, but it adds to the effect that Mark is this unusual man.

The movie does a good job to portray Mark as this creepy man, but I honestly do not see Mark as that man.  As a kid he was traumatized by all the experiments that his dad did on him and I feel sorry that his childhood had to be like that.  But deep down inside, he does show that he cares about other people besides himself.  We first see this in the case where Mark allows Helen to come up to his apartment and give her a gift.  And he even stated that no one else has been in his apartment before so he must have shown some affection towards Helen.  Another instance where he shows that he cares about Helen is when they go on a date and Helen asks Mark to leave his camera behind.  He was reluctant at first, but he finally decided to leave his camera behind.  That was a huge step for Mark because he never goes anywhere without his camera.  But I think that the most significant instance where he shows that he has a heart is when he is about to kill Helen.  Normally he would kill the women he films, but in this case he restrains himself because he shows that he actually cares about Helen.

Mark is a interesting man in this movie because you can look at him in two perspectives.  You can see him as this killer who only wants to get scenes for his movie.  Or you can see him as a caring man who went through rough times and you want to feel sorry for him.  It was sad to seem him die in the movie because I feel as though he could have changed with a little therapy help just like Helen’s mom has suggested.  And on a closing note, I do not know what Helen saw in Mark to begin with.

“Perfumed Nightmare” is a difficult movie to put into just one category. The movie has a very documentary type feel to it with hints of comedic relief along with completely fictional scenes. It is a low budget independent film and is considered to be part of the “Third Cinema” movement. In “Perfumed Nightmare” Kidlat Tahimik is born and raised in a small Philippine village with dreams of reaching America and more specifically joining the NASA program. He seems fascinated with the modern world and the technological advances it promotes. He loves to hear stories of one woman who was the only person in the village to have been in an airplane. When Kidlat get’s his opportunity to potentially reach America he does not pass it up. However, he goes to France first where he stays and works and is overwhelmed by modern technology. It is here that Kidlat see’s that his idea of what the modern world was like was skewed. He see’s modernity as unnecessary and over-done.

In a particular scene Kidlat comes to the realization that there is no need for a “supermarket” because a regular market fulfills the same purpose just fine. There is no need for it to be “super” if the normal one has no problems. The large plastic trash incinerators that he discovers especially anger Kidlat. He comes to recognize that these trash incinerators that everyone easily walks by without a second glance could house half of his entire village. The film documents well that most housing in Kidlat’s village is built from bamboo, which takes time and skill. And here are these giant plastic incinerators that could hold the equivalent of half his village that are just sitting behind a supermarket. It is here that Kidlat sees that this modern life is not for him and eventually finds his way back to the Philippines.

Kidlat (the director and character) seems to have a problem with modern society and western culture. It is clear that there is already a western influence on the small village that Kidlat comes from. There is a shot in the opening scenes of a large Marlboro advertisement; the jeeps that Kidlat drives are remade Humvees from the war. The very way he makes his living is in part thanks to western culture. However, it appears that Kidlat uses this film to describe his issues with western society and what it stands for. He is obviously against the idea of these large corporations that are putting the small people out of business. One of the final scenes is of Kidlat blowing wind so fiercely that he blows away these masked people who represent western power and cranes representing technological progress. His opposition to western culture and its ideology is extremely ironic. It turns out that Kidlat Tahimik studied at the University of Pennsylvania where he even received his Masters in Business Administration. So with Kidlat Tahimik being so deeply involved in western culture why do you think he is so opposed to it?

I felt very indifferent while watching Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom. Personally, I am not a huge fan of scary movies. They give me nightmares and tend to make me feel overly uncomfortable. Embarrassingly enough, I cannot even watch Steven Spielberg’s Jaws without getting anxious. Although both films made me uncomfortable, there is something a little more bearable about Peeping Tom. The main character, Mark Lewis, was an extremely troubled man, which made me feel sorry for him more so than scared of him. These opinions formed over the course of the film. I feel like most people are disturbed by movies depending on how realistic they are, but for me, it is the opposite. I find myself trembling at the thought of a practically indestructible shark more so than a mentally ill murderer. How is that possible?

Peeping Tom took on the movie from the murderer’s perspective. The audience followed Mark throughout the movie forcing us to form a relationship with his character. From the beginning, it was apparent he was up to no good but we continued to watch. We found entertainment in his sick actions while we learned more about his horrific past, including his relationship with his father. We began to form a soft spot for him. As Mark’s feelings for female housemate, Helen, become more apparent, his troubling past continues to unravel. Originally, most people were probably very turned off by Mark but once his struggles were clear and a positive side was shown by his feelings for Helen, he became more likeable. His will to protect her from himself exemplifies that his actions are not out of a sick joy for killing people but a disturbed soul. The original fear transformed into confusion and pity. Viewers become more able to justify his awful behaviors because of the slight exposure to his gentle and remotely sane side.

What does that mean for a scary movie? In my opinion, Peeping Tom has a creepy storyline, but the fear factor is toned down by the relationship we, as viewers, were able to form with his character. Any narrative containing a murderer can make a person anxious but I think opinions and fear are defined by the relationship the audience is able to create. By the end of the movie, more viewers are inclined to feel indifferent than horrified because of exposure to the antagonist in which builds an understanding. Although Mark was still deemed as creepy and weird by many in the class and many people also felt disturbed by the realistic aspects of the film, not many people solely blamed Mark for his wrong-doings. The audience was able to stick up and justify his ill-minded behaviors.

When I compare Peeping Tom to other horror films, the comparisons and contradictions are endless. I find that many psychological horror films lose their edge depending on two aspects: the point of view and justification. When a movie is portrayed in favor of the sick minded, the audience can easily justify their wrongs because in a sense, they “know” the character. When the film focuses more so on the story’s prey, the film’s fear factor increases due to the lack of ability to justify the antagonist’s actions.

I have never been one for horror films, mainly because they all seem cliché and thus, aren’t scary. After watching Peeping Tom directed by Michael Powell, I have realized that my perception of horror films is based more off of contemporary films. Michael Powell was able to create a realistic situation that most viewers could easily relate too. The psychotic protagonist Mark appears as an average man within society until you start to pay closer attention to him. To also help us relate and sympathize with Mark, we are shown a traumatic childhood experience in which his father puts a lizard on him and videotapes the incident. And finally, the one not so normal thing about Mark is his fascination with murdering people and videotaping it. Michael Powell was able to get into the viewers mind by creating a sympathetic feeling with Mark’s traumatic experience and by also placing the viewer behind the camera during the murder scenes. These techniques proved wildly successful and have been used in other well-known horror films such as Halloween.

It is basic human nature to care for other people and so we easily sympathize or empathize in certain situations. One situation most people are easily sympathetic to is something happening to a child, who we consider to be innocent beings in our society. During Mark’s childhood, the viewer is led to believe he is treated more as a science experiment than a child. His father, researching fear videotapes Mark for most of his childhood placing Mark in different situations that typically evokes fear. In one scene we see Mark’s father place a lizard on him and Mark is forced to let the lizard move about him. As humans it is in our nature to feel bad for this child. Now that Mark is grown up and we see how he spends most of his time we can justify why he is a little creepy. It is normal for us to want to take the blame away from Mark and say it is not his fault because of what happen to him as a child. Michael Powell used this to connect to the viewer and gain their sympathy for Mark.

The second technique Powell used to get into the viewers mind was by placing them in the shoes of the protagonist. This is actually how the film starts; by placing the viewer behind the camera as Mark murders one of his victims. In every one of the murder scenes excluding when Mark dies, the viewer is placed behind the camera as if they are the one committing the murder. Although, we are all obviously not murders; it emphasizes the point that a murder doesn’t have to be someone special it can be just an average, regular person or so they appear that way to most in society.

In Peeping Tom, Michael Powell is able to create a work of art portraying an average citizen who also happens to be a murder. By grasping the viewer with the traumatic experience of Mark and placing them in the eyes of the killer, Powell is able to connect with each viewer in this chilling thriller. Powell’s techniques appeared again in later popular horror movies. In John Carpenters Halloween, protagonist Michael loses control as a child and murders his sister. He is later locked away and escapes back to his hometown, the site of his childhood killing. As he stocks and murders individuals of the community we see the killings through his eyes. These techniques were extremely successful in their time and I believe we have gotten away from reaching the viewers mind within the horror genre. The horror genre needs to find ways to reach the viewers through sympathy or empathy and finally, make them feel like they are apart of it. For true fans of horror, feeling as if they are in the film is the best way to be scared and the cliché techniques horror films are trying to use now days are simply not going to cut it.

Lest you think that all trailers from the 1970s were as awful as the original Star Wars trailer, here is the trailer for the first Alien film, which is like the Citizen Kane of movie trailers.

If you missed class yesterday, you missed your chance to participate in cinematic democracy (sorry New York field trippers!). By a margin of 17 to 10, Tropic Thunder was chosen over Stories We Tell as our Week 10 film, the final film for the class . . . A late addition to the race, the 2011 Muppet movie received a shameful 0 votes (they should have left the original alone). I will apologize in advance for ruining Tropic Thunder by making you all talk about the film’s ideology and the protests surrounding its representation of disability.
P.S. If you’re really into learning more about trailers, you might check out this article and this video.

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.

At first, I didn’t really know how to feel about this film. The story of a man killing his mother, and playing psychological mind games is something that makes me a little uneasy when watching it. I am not one to watch horror movies but Peeping Tom was an exception. Although there was limited violence or brutal scenes that you generally see in horror movies, Peeping Tom played with the audiences emotions by messing with their brain. You never knew what was going to happen in the next scene. The film has more of an impact, to me at least, than one that solely contains brutal and violent murders.

Mark begins to kill from the beginning of the film when he murders a prostitute in a hotel room, capturing the whole thing on camera. Mark’s life was greatly effected by his father when he would film the look of terror and fear on Mark’s face when he placed a lizard on him. When the girl walks into the studio and she has a broken face, Mark sees the beauty that is in her and doesn’t mind taking her picture. He enjoys seeing pain and fear in someone’s eyes when they are with him. He captures these moments with his camera that he allows has in his hands. The suspense throughout the movie about what Mark is going to do next is off the charts. When he meets Helen, she is super casual about getting cozy with a psychotic killer! Why do you not run Helen?

Even after Helen views the movies that Mark has made, she still sticks by his side and is not deterred from the actions of Mark. She is enamored by a psychotic killer that could potentially kill her. This love affair adds to the suspense of the movie because we become fearful of what Mark may do to Helen. At the end of the movie, we see Mark impale himself with the knife that is attached to his camera and this rounds off the production that he was trying to produce. The ultimate look of fear is the one that comes when you go to kill yourself. Helen weeps over Mark’s impaled body even though she knew that he was a terrible person that murdered many people, including his own mother.

This film is one that I would watch again because I feel that there are elements that you do not pick up on during the first viewing of the film. I enjoyed this film to a certain extent because it held a little bit of comedic value in how blind Helen was to what Mark was doing with the video camera and just how messed up he actually was. The suspense was what progressed the whole movie because you were constantly wondering what would happen next to Helen and Mark. Mark was always a nice guy to Helen and I believe that he was in love with her and was not simply using her for her reactions. Was Helen in love with Mark or  scared of what might happen if she decided to ignore Mark and go about her life?

Here’s a recut trailer thing that imagines a mashup of 8 1/2 and 8 Mile, the Eminem movie. It’s kind of funny. We’ll be talking about movie trailers before we vote on the film choice for week 10 . . . next week, maybe?