Irma's 2nd essay : Counseling by the movie stars?
Note for Steve:
Hi Steve, I’ve chosen to dig more into the influence of film language on our guidelines in life. This seemed like a good idea considering my work at this moment. (audio installation Fortunewood ) As you may know, I've presented two works on our exhibition in EYE on the 28th of Feb. This turned out very well, although it took quite some time. This gave me less time to concentrate on my essay, therefore I missed the opportunity to send you the first draft. Of course, I respect the deadline and I accept the consequences for my grade but would definitely like to make this into a better essay in the coming period.
Essay : Counseling from the movie stars?
Intro
What is the (sub)conscious influence film language on our moral compass in life? Do certain scenes that you've seen in your childhood make you act differently as an adult? How a relationship should be, how a leader should act, how to recognize a bad guy, and how you always have the confident that everything will be alright in the end?
Batman
Does a storyline in a movie change your point of view on the government? Dr. Dan Hassler-Forest analyzed one of the most discussed scenes from this movie. In this scene Bruce Wayne (Batman) reveals to Lucius Fox (Father Figure and you could say he repackages the Super-Ego of Batman) that he modified his Sonar Cell Phone Technology to create a device that allows him to listen to all of Gotham City’s cellular telephone network. A great weapon and very dangerous if it gets in the wrong hands, you would not trust many people with this power. So can we trust our superhero Batman? Does he really need this system to catch our bad guy? The two characters have a discussion of the dangerous and the need for this system, although Lucian Fox thinks it is unethical, he does he will help Batmen promising him that he will resign after because of this. after this. The problem is “solved” because Batman orders Lucian Fox to destroy the system after getting the bad guy.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr7AONv3FSg This scene was interpreted very differently by several film critics. In The Wall Street Journal of July 25th film critic Andrew Klavan writes that on some level this Batman film is a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Batman is Bush. His college BLABLA from The NY times interpreted this in a different way, he thought the movie was a good example of that things go wrong because Batman does things that cross the line. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121694247343482821 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/movies/18knig.html
The conclusion of Dr. Dan Hassler-Forest is that the director's strategy was to put both of interpretations in the film, you could say that this is the success of the film. The strategy of putting as much as the meaning is as possible, the contradictions which are relevant in these times of terror. Was the goal to not answering these questions but to raise the discussion?
Tips and tricks from filmmakers
I think that a great power of manipulation lies in the hand of the director, he decided how to tell the story and what he wants the audience to think, which characters to like hate.
According to screenwriter Blake Snyder “The hero has to do something when we meet him so that we like him and we want him to win.” Saving the cat, Blake Syder (2005) - p121-
To become likable for the audience the main character he has to do something nice, for example saving a cat, to “prove” the audience he is a good man.
Alfred Hitchcock ones said, “I enjoy playing the audience like a piano”
From this quote alone, it is clear that Hitchcock knew that the imagination was far more powerful than any image he could render on the screen, and this knowledge was key ability to manipulate his audience. For example the use of the Kuleshov effect, based on a research by Soviet filmmaker Lev Kuleshov in the 1910s and 1920s. He edited three short films which one shot of the expressionless face of actor Mosjoukine was used in all films but combined with various other shots. a plate of soup, a girl in a coffin, a woman on a divan. All films were shown to a different audience, asking them to interpreted the emotion of the man looking at the soup, girl or woman. The audience believed that the expression on Mosjoukine's face was different depending on whether he was "looking at" the subject. The same expression of the actor was interpreted with of hunger, grief or desire.