I went and listened in on the Q&A between the director of the Cinema Studies program and comedic writer/director Matt Piedmont. Personally, I thought that this Q&A was a little bit lacking in substantial information, and was more of a vehicle to better get to know Matt’s personal life. There were not many tips or words of wisdom, which I felt could have been very beneficial.

The Q&A started with a screening of the last episode of his new mini-series “The Spoils of Babylon”. We watch that for approximately 15 minutes and when that concluded the interview began. Matt told us of how he always loved movies and the idea of making them, but he never thought he would have a career doing so. He didn’t go to school to become a director, and went to New York on a whim after he finished his degree (which he got to custom make after he petitioned). He got a page position at SNL, and he fell in love with working in the 30 Rock building. He was offered a job selling tickets for the show and being basically a receptionist, and he willingly accepted. Over time he was asked to write the promo section of the show, and it was greatly accepted by the studio and audience. This landed him a real writing position in the show, and he began to really hone his craft.

He works closely with Will Ferrell and writes for Funny or Die. Because of this relationship he was able to cast Will in his “Spoils of Babylon” show. Because he had such a prominent actor already casted, he was able to get a lot more famous actors/actresses on board with this crazy series.

The most rewarding part of this interview was when Matt opened up to questions from the audience. While I am not interested in a film career, I still thought that the questions asked to Matt by my fellow classmates provided good insight that was not given in his formal interview. During this section he explained his writing process, which essentially boils down to walking around and observing people until something funny happens that he can write about. While this may seem silly, I can relate to this method in my process with advertising. I get the best ideas when I am simply observing my surroundings. Another great piece of information was about how you need to rejoice over your failures. He told us about all of the times that he had to pitch a skit in front of 300 or so people at SNL. Sometimes you would have a well-received skit, but most of the time it was criticized and shut down. He said that he actually liked it more when he was rejected than when he was successful. It allows you to get a critical analysis of your work, and shows you what you need to work on.

Overall, this interview was pretty interesting, but lacking in real substance. I would have liked to see a bit more of a pointed argument, but it was still entertaining.

On Thursday April 24, 2014, Kelly Matheson visited Eugene’s Cinema Pacific Festival through the law school to discuss the way that film can be used for justice in human rights.

Matheson works for “Witness,” a human-rights advocacy organization in NY city working to promote visual media as advocacy for human rights and as evidence against human rights abuses.

Four case studies were used to portray the significance that film and media have played in creating either awareness about or evidence against human rights abuses. The first was the 1982 Guatemalan revolution, where a filmmographer went to the country to film the experiences of the indigenous communities being attacked by the government’s military. This ultimately became a documentary called When the Mountains Tremble, but the great significance of the film was in the interview the filmmographer had with Mont, the dictator of Guatemala at the time. The prosecutor in the case against Mont saw the documentary and ultimately was able to use his interview, where he admitted to controlling the military and all of its actions, to convict Mont of crimes against humanity and genocide in 2013. The other case studies were similar in showing how effective film can be in evidence of the law and rights being broken.

This aspect of film falls into the genre of advocacy documentary. The form of the films are highly variable, but the ‘narratives’ of the documentaries portraying injustice are all fairly similar in the sense that they are revealing testimonials.

An interesting part of the talk was in the question and answer session when Matheson discussed the logistics of the cinematography and editing of these justice films. She noted that if these films are to be used, it is important that they have certain elements, such as showing causal action and displaying the entirety of an event. Similarly, in the editing, it is necessary to have a date  and time as well as have a viable source of tracking the film from the act of taking it to the process of getting it to the court room (to ensure it is neither tampered with nor somehow falsified).

Overall, Matheson’s talk gave me a very interesting perspective of the use of film not only as entertainment and art, but as justice and regaining power to the victims of atrocities.

Kelly Matheson has a TedX talk that is not exactly the same, but similar to the one she gave at Cinema Pacific, if anyone is interested:

One of the better film criticism blogs, The Dissolve, has named Sherlock Jr. their “movie of the week” for this week. Here’s the first post, which says some interesting things about the film’s “rectangularity.”

The 1952 musical motion picture, Singing in the Rain, contains themes that are still relevant to our society sixty years later; Specifically, the film’s critique of the entertainment industry and the Hollywood lifestyle. The main message that the film is that not everything is how it seems in Hollywood. Each main character has some sort of façade that they hide behind.  Don Lockwood and his partner Cosmo Brown hide behind a false backstory of privilege and wealth, when in reality, the two grew up poor and worked as traveling street performers. His love interest, Kathy Seldon, begins to make a living by voicing over the famous lip-syncing actress, Lina Lamont. When the film industry acquired the technology to add sound to their motion pictures, Lina’s high pitched, annoying voice became a threat to her reputation as an actress. Thus, Kathy was hired to be Lina’s “voice”, recording over Lina’s dialogue and singing in her films.

These instances of deception and scandal are used to portray the corruption of Hollywood in a humorous manner. It is interesting to watch a film that takes a stab at its’ own industry, especially during a time when the film industry was thriving and expanding. The things that Singing in the Rain depicted as wrong in Hollywood in the 1950’s can still be seen in Hollywood today. Actors with biographies written for PR campaigns, singers that are professional lip-syncers, and films with plots that you could predict in your sleep.

In some regard, Singing in the Rain foreshadowed what was to be modern-day Hollywood. I think that is one of the reasons that the film has had such a strong staying power over the years. It depicts a story about Hollywood that is relevant to our perceptions of Hollywood sixty years later. Hollywood hasn’t changed much since its’ golden age from whence this film came. The funny thing is: people consider Singing in the Rain to be from an era in which Hollywood was at its’ finest. While the films released at this time might have been of higher quality, Hollywood as an industry has always been somewhat corrupt and deceptive.

One scene that stuck out to me as a low blow to Hollywood was when the main character, Don Lockwood, was telling the reporter about his childhood. As Don describes his life from childhood through adulthood, the flashbacks of his life reveal that he is, in fact, from poverty. Don lying about his background is a direct jab at famous actors who exaggerate their backgrounds, or even flat out lie about it. The scene sends a message to the audience that says “in order to make it into Hollywood, you need to change yourself.” Powerful message for a 1952 major motion picture to send about its’ own industry; regardless of how true the statement may be.

While watching “Man with a Movie camera” many different thoughts and opinions ran through my head during different points in the movie. As discussed in class, with a movie like this, without plot or characters, the audience should find things to focus on in order to stay connected to the film. While watching the film, one tactic that I seemed to have used was focusing on the scenes in which the director showed how the camera man was obtaining the shot. I started to notice the shot would at first show the camera man shooting the scene, then it would jump to what that shot looked like from the previous camera. For example, a scene that was repeated a couple times was the man with the movie camera laying on the train tracks in order to film the train approaching, it would then jump to his camera and show the train approaching and rushing over him. These repeated scenes and jump cuts kept me focused because I felt like it was the director directly talking to the audiance to show the complexity  or even dangerous activities he did in order to achieve the shots and angles his camera captured.

Another example of this was the scene in which the camera man was in the car filming the group of women. At first the viewer sees  the camera man filming the car next to his own, then the cut jumps to just what his camera is capturing and we see the unrehearsed reactions of the women being filmed. This scene not only showed a typical sight in Russian society, but also showed a typical sight of the directors life, the latter of which I felt was a strong influence of the film. Not only was the film a beautiful representation of the society he filmed, but also, a glimpse of his own life. I started to feel like this movie was a work to glorify movie making and avant -grarde; to show the art form of cinema. This movie showed the work he put into each shot while also commenting on the power he held with each shot.

Realizing that these shots may be apart of a conversation highlighting the beauty and work of art cinema, brought to light the power he held, as the director, over what images and feelings we saw and felt. He not only wanted to highlight the work and design he put into every single shot, but also show how much power over the audience these images held. Scenes like the ones showing the man with his movie camera as a giant, filming the city below him, or the stop action scenes making the lobster or the camera come to life represent how he can manipulate and control what the audience can see. The entire piece was to commemorate art cinema and all it has to offer. To show the hard work it takes in order to get the shots we see, as well as to glorify the power these images can hold.

“Man With A Movie Camera” by Dziga Vertov is an experimental montage-documentary that was made in 1929. This film is one of the most interesting films I have ever seen and kept my attention throughout its entirety. I was most astonished by the extremely advanced film techniques and editing style, and can definitely see how this film has influenced popular films styles of today.

My initial reaction to the film was one of confusion, as I thought it was just a random montage of Russian life. However, during our discussion of the film, I started to realize the juxtapositions and cultural commentary that “Man With A Movie Camera” was conveying. The quick and choppy editing was by design and aimed to showcase the industrialist society of Russia. The juxtapositions between industry and recreation depicted the separation of different social classes.

I also believe that “Man With A Movie Camera” is a film that intended to inspire Russian workers and fuel nationalistic ideologies. This film is essentially a tribute to the hard working laborers of Odessa. I think Vertov wanted to show the strength of the Russian manufacturing industry as a way to inspire its citizens. Moreover, Vertov chooses to shoot recreational activities, such as a bar or a beach, in order to show how great the lives are of Russia’s citizens. I think one could definitely make the case that “Man With A Movie Camera” was used as a form of propaganda, which was especially common in Lenin era.

The cultural commentary and significance of “Man With A Movie Camera” are very important, but I also believe the cinematography and technologies used in filming are just as important.

Vertov uses many different filming techniques to disorient the viewer, contextualize the scene, and symbolize an idea. One of the most symbolic fixtures of “Man With The Move Camera” is the double exposure shot of a silhouetted man with a camera in the clouds. Vertov, who we assume is the man, uses his camera to peak into the everyday lives of Russian citizens, just as a man, or “God” in the sky would.

Another scene that astonished me was when the horse was galloping around the track. During this scene, Vertov used a carriage to track alongside the horse, and then slowed the frame rate down so the horse galloped in slow motion. I did not know that slow motion filmmaking existed in the 1920s, so to see it done so well was an amazing experience.

“Man With A Movie Camera” definitely struck a chord with me because I am fan of montage filmmaking. Another film I really enjoy that is similar to
“Man With A Movie Camera” is “Koyaanisqatsi,” which is a city-montage film directed by Godfrey Reggio in 1982. Both of these films aim to show the culture and society of the time, while also commenting on certain societal trends. “Koyaanisqatsi” aims to highlight the relationship between humans, nature, and technology, while “Man With A Movie Camera” comments on industrialization and the juxtaposition of Russian social classes.

Vertov created a film that was extremely influential in terms of cinematography, storytelling, and film technology, and I believe the film industry would not be the same had “Man With A Movie Camera” not been produced.

While watching Singing in the Rain and Sherlock Jr. I couldn’t help but feel good inside. Neither of these movies have very much meaning to them, and that is perfectly fine. I understand that Singing in the Rain has a love story attached to it, but there really is no deeper meaning other than an entertaining story. The fact that these stories have a simple purpose was actually very refreshing to me and made me like them even more.

In present times there is such an emphasis on a detailed story line and overly complicated characters. Movies that are created purely for entertainment get destroyed by the critics and are not taken seriously. I was very happy to be reminded the real reason that film was created and why people fell in love with the art. These films were created to make people feel good, and that is exactly what they do.

In Singing in the Rain we are presented a light-hearted story of a man who came from nothing to become a famous actor. This story takes place during the introduction of “talkies”. While we may see this new technology as revolutionary, many actors/actresses of the time felt threatened by it. They had never had to use their voices, let alone memorize/recite lines so it is easy to see where they were coming from. The film definitely plays on this change in the industry by showing us actors/actresses in the midst of the transition. The humor that comes from basing the film around this transition is gold. The character of Lina Lamont is the one most negatively affected by this change. Before the introduction of talkies, Lina was a big star on the screen. She was very pretty, but had a rather obnoxious voice. When her producer and director were thinking about her role in their new film with sound, it hit them rather suddenly how their audience would react.

This simple humor has a special place and should not be overlooked. When not having to tax your brain with a complicated story line, you are able to truly appreciate the humor that comes with a movie like this. Not only does this movie have some great humor, but it also pleases our senses with great scenes of song and dance. It is interesting to me to think that this song and dance aspect of film used to be commonplace in multiple genres. Today, we rarely see an actor break out into song or dance unless it is in a musical. But, I was pleasantly reminded of how enjoying it is to watch someone who is a professional in the art, perform a well-orchestrated dance on stage. This kind of entertainment truly showcases how film is art in many different ways. It is not always about the great dialogue between characters, or the insane plot twist that leaves you scratching your head, but sometimes it is really just about the good feelings that come from watching a simple, humorous piece of entertainment.

Jeremy Dahm

When watching “Man with a Movie Camera”, I strongly kept in mind that it was an experimental film, a film that would probably throw me off guard and would have completely disorientate my sense of what movies are supposed to convey. However, despite the rather shocking introduction to this new kind of film, I found myself searching, and occasionally finding narrative in the movie. Through these short, choppy narratives I tried to relate to in the movie, I also came across multiple metaphors of life. The film did bore me a bit, but these narratives and metaphors I was combing through in the movie, made it seem like a puzzle. In fact, because this was such a different sort of movie, I was constantly trying to put these chopped pieces together (like a narrative movie) and scrutinize the sort of editing done, the timing of editing, and such.

In the beginning the movie starts out slow and sort of quiet. The empty city streets are shown and then a sleeping girl is shown. There is quietness, serenity and peacefulness. Everybody is still resting. And then the girl wakes up and slowly gets ready for work as city people start streaming into the streets. Also we see trains and buses getting ready to departure and start their day within the city. By time the girl is washing her face and is ready to start the day, trains are moving within the city and buses are departing their ways. Also, within these shots of the rising city, we see a woman sweeping the street and also another person hosing down a statue. To me, all of this signified the development of the Soviet Union. As watching this, I was thinking of the rise of the industrial Soviet Union. At first the country was quiet, resting and normal and then a seemingly chaos erupts-the country wakes up to be productive. To be successful. To bring out the full potential of the day.

I think the organized chaos of the industrial revolution of the Soviet Union was portrayed through the rest of the film, especially the trains. The trains were shown multiple times throughout the film, in various different ways. The camera was utilized in a way to show the train operating in different ways, thus, society operating in different ways and yet all conjoining together to be productive. The scene that comes to mind the most is when multiple trains are shown moving into the city and though they cross within what seems inches of one another, they never crash into one another. To me this signified society all functioning in different parts and different paths and yet being industrious together.

Overall, I pictured the film being all about the Soviet Union society at the time. The cinematography of the film seems to be a mess with the various camera positions and speeds but I think this simply illuminates the various lives of people within the then developing nation. The craziness of the cinematography shows the craziness of life then. However, I honestly thought it was beautiful that I did feel a considerable amount of chaos and unconnected feeling to the film at first and then saw the splendor of how the chaos came together to make sense. To me the movie depicted life in a way that anyone could paint their views onto it and decide what it meant. And I saw the film as depicting a sense of pride over the organized chaos during the industrial revolution of the soviet Union.

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.

In today’s world, silent films are essentially non-existent. To most the idea of a silent film is not the ideal way to spend an evening and I, like most, am part of that large extensive group. It seems almost as simple as, why watch something silent when I can watch something with sound? More than a legitimate critique of silent film, but to truly understand how and why the movie industry is the way it is today, we must examine the whole history of motion picture. To truly understand movies, you even need to go further back and examine plays that eventually led to the creation of motion picture. In the essence of time we’ll stick to a brief analysis of Buster Keaton’s silent film Sherlock Jr. While I’ll admit that silent films seem rather outdated and not entertaining, I was shocked by the amount of strategies used in the film to make the audience laugh that are still extremely common comedic ploys used in today’s film industry in films such as StepBrothers and Big Daddy. Don’t change something that works, and that is exactly what the American film cinema has done by relying on the same strategies that were relied on over eighty years ago.

This narrative uses many common strategies used today in comedies such as reaching the audience through the misfortunes of others and the portrayal of unrealistic events. In one of my favorite scenes; Buster Keaton follows the man who actually stole the pocket watch after reading in his, “how to be a detective” book to “shadow your man closely.” In this comedic scene, we see a vast array of typically thought of as unrealistic events. Keaton is within a footstep of the man while the man simply doesn’t notice. Also, during the scene Keaton catches a cigarette the man is smoking and he smokes some as well, they avoid a car by making the exact same movements and finally, Keaton walks into a door towards the end of the scene. An example of reaching the audience through another’s misfortune also comes in what I regard as one of the best scenes of the movie. Keaton is finishing sweeping the theater and he is asked about finding some money. He asks the lady to describe it (probably looks like every other bill) and she does, so he gives it back. Next, another lady comes looking for lost money and with a confused look on his face Keaton describes it and the second lady confirms it. Finally, a man comes looking for his lost money and Keaton without question gives the guy a dollar and surprisingly the man gives it back only to pull a wallet with a stack of cash in it out of the pile. Instantly Buster dives into the trash and starts looking for money.  In both scenes, Keaton intends to make the audience laugh and I think he absolutely succeeds.

Moving forward more than eighty years, we still see these same two strategies in most modern day comedic successes. One of the most recent, wildly successful unrealistic comedic films is StepBrothers, the story of two forty year olds who both live with their parents and become stepbrothers through marriage. In one classic scene, Brennan Huff and Dale Doback walk home and are forced to eat white dog poop by kids who appear around middle school age. This is just one small example of the many unrealistic events that take place in this film. The entire film is primarily based on unrealistic events, but nonetheless has most audience members in tears after watching for the first time. A classic movie that capitalizes on the misfortune of one man comes from comedic icon, Adam Sandler in Big Daddy.  In the film Adam Sandler struggles to get Frankenstein (Julian), a kid he is taking care of to stop crying. He finds that hurting himself helps the kid stop crying. This leads to numerous scenes with Sandler purposely hurting himself, one that sticks in my mind is when he jumps in front of a car and tells the guy, “Next time, kill me.” Using this strategy, Big Daddy was able to reach the audience through the misfortune of Adam Sandler and insight laughter.

Through examining a wildly successful silently movie in Sherlock Jr. and comparing this with two successful comedic movies of our time, one thing becomes evident. It is clear that although technology changes and we make advances in costume, microphones, cameras and everything else that the strategies used to induce laughter from the audience remain constant. In class and in our text, Professor Platt, and author Richard Barsam touched on the conformity of Hollywood primarily around the early 1900’s, but based on this simple comparison, conformity is still widespread in the movie industry. As a business major and current accountant, it is relatively safer and bares less risk to conform to strategies that have proven to work rather than innovate, although innovation can be accompanied by greater reward.