My Blog List
My Blog List
Monday, 29 February 2016
Sunday, 28 February 2016
What Richard Did
What Richard Did is a thriller, social realism and drama. It was made in 2012 and it was directed by Lenny Abrhamson. It is about a Boy named Richard who's life is turned into a spiral of depression when he hears his rugby friend was found in a ditch near the house party he was at last night. The themes of the film are betrayal, friend ship, relationships, family and love.
This film portrays a perfect picture of evocative portrait of guilt and mourning whilst also parsing stickiest notions of guilt and innocence. Richard keeps flip-flopping on the idea of turning himself in as he learns he's not a suspect, a wishy-washy belief that suggests nothing. It frees him, the idea of coming clean, but at the same time he understands the pain and suffering he would be causing his family and community by going away. Richard seems like he would do a lot more good out of prison than inside, particularly with the upcoming young kids he's shepherding through school. What's important, What Richard Did asks, is that we understand the difference between binary understandings of good and bad, and why it's never as simple as making amends or admitting to an accident. Tough and unsentimental, What Richard Did is a superb examination of the thin line behind harmless recklessness and stark tragedy.
What Richard did represents that admitting to your mistakes is not always the greatest moral way out of turmoil. Richard's father understands and empathizes with his son that simply admitting will not solve his problems. This is shown through the performance and cinematography. The shot within in the scene where Richard tells his father that he killed Connor is on sticks and it is a close up. This shot drags for a considerable amount of time therefore allowing the audience to feel the pain and suffering that Richard is in. The close up allows the audience to fathom what the characters are feeling by seeing their facial expressions and the tight framing centres the attention on the characters emotions. I do believe that the scene did achieve it's meaning of displaying the character's emotion. But I believe that they could have included more close ups of the father's hands on Richard's head or a tear running down of his face. This would have shown the relationship between the father and Richard and therefore able to show the audience more of the emotion.
This film portrays a perfect picture of evocative portrait of guilt and mourning whilst also parsing stickiest notions of guilt and innocence. Richard keeps flip-flopping on the idea of turning himself in as he learns he's not a suspect, a wishy-washy belief that suggests nothing. It frees him, the idea of coming clean, but at the same time he understands the pain and suffering he would be causing his family and community by going away. Richard seems like he would do a lot more good out of prison than inside, particularly with the upcoming young kids he's shepherding through school. What's important, What Richard Did asks, is that we understand the difference between binary understandings of good and bad, and why it's never as simple as making amends or admitting to an accident. Tough and unsentimental, What Richard Did is a superb examination of the thin line behind harmless recklessness and stark tragedy.
What Richard did represents that admitting to your mistakes is not always the greatest moral way out of turmoil. Richard's father understands and empathizes with his son that simply admitting will not solve his problems. This is shown through the performance and cinematography. The shot within in the scene where Richard tells his father that he killed Connor is on sticks and it is a close up. This shot drags for a considerable amount of time therefore allowing the audience to feel the pain and suffering that Richard is in. The close up allows the audience to fathom what the characters are feeling by seeing their facial expressions and the tight framing centres the attention on the characters emotions. I do believe that the scene did achieve it's meaning of displaying the character's emotion. But I believe that they could have included more close ups of the father's hands on Richard's head or a tear running down of his face. This would have shown the relationship between the father and Richard and therefore able to show the audience more of the emotion.
Monday, 22 February 2016
Miracle at St Anna vs Inglorious Basterds.
Miracle at st Anna was made in 2008 and was directed by Spike Lee. The genre of the film is action, thriller and period drama. The themes of the film are racism, White Supremacy, war, survival, trust, betrayal, mythology, religion and death. The Film Inglorious Basterds was directed by Quentin Tarantino and was made 2009. The film's genres are action, thriller and period drama. The film's themes are bigotry, hatred, survival, trust, racism and disloyalty.
The film similarities are that they both do not glamourise world war two. Quentin is excessive use of blood in his films. He does not hide away from showing how rough the war really war. For example in inglorious basterds, LT Aldo Reighn wants as many Nazi scalps as possible and there are plenty of times you view the scalp of a Nazi being taken off. There is also the last scene where two of the inglorious bastards are shooting hitler and himler. In Miracle at st Anna there is the scene where the Nazis start shooting through the trees whilst the Americans are walking over the river and a soldier in front of Sam Train gets shot and blood is splattered Sam's face. There is also the scene where loads of Italians are all shot in front of a church. Even after all of them have died Max Malatesta goes round shooting the rest of them to death. There is a link of mythology in both of these films. Inglorious Basterds the scalps are represented as a strength item, the more have the more powerful you are or the more legendary you become. A lust of power is shown through LT Aldo Reighn. he repeatedly states how he wants scalps. Now the representation of mythology in the film Miracle at St Anna is shown in the statues head. Sam train in the first battle scene stands there whilst there are many explosions and gun fire going on and Sam doesn't get shot or hurt. Sam also lifts the wooden bar of the boy to save his life. Sam also gets shot multiple times and still is able to lift another soldier. Sam states how the statue's head gives it the owner or the occupier of the head the strength of 5 men and the heart of a lion. Mythology is represented to be an enhancement to who ever wields the mythological object.
The differences between the two films is the forth wall break in inglorious basterds and the more realistic character development in Miracle at St Anna. The forth wall is illusive through out inglorious basterds. During the end of the film there is the film of Fredrick Zoller shooting loads of enemies. As an audience reaction to fredrick Zoller's film I am disgusted because it is mindless violence. The audience watching Fredrick Zoller's film in the scene are laughing and cheering. But when watching inglorious basterds I realised that I am also laughing and cheering at mindless violence. I am like the Nazis in the cinema at the end of inglorious basterds. Quentin Tarantino is almost mocking the audience by putting this is in and getting the audience to realise that we are just as bad as the Nazis laughing at the film. The character development in Miracle at st Anna is a lot more realistic and believable. I think that this is the consequence from having four major key characters. Sam, Hector, Bishop and Stamps. Yet inglorious basterds has 12 major characters therefore it would be difficult to keep steady development on each character.
Monday, 8 February 2016
COULSDON COLLEGE: MEDIA TEXT INFORMATION SHEET
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TITLE:
|
Wallace and Grommit - the Curse of the were rabbit
|
YEAR OF PROD:
|
2005
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TYPE:
|
FILM
A
|
TELEVISION
|
DOC.
|
MUSIC
|
ADVERT
|
MUSIC VID.
|
OTHER:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DIRECTOR
|
Steve box and Nick Park
|
PRODUCER
|
claire jennings, peter lord, nick park, carla shelley, david sproxtin
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WRITER
|
nick park, steve box, mark burton, bob baker
|
PRODUCTION COMPANY
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KEY CAST
/ARTIST
|
Peter Sallis, Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KEY CREW
| Music by
Cinematography by
Film Editing by
Casting By
Production Design by
Art Direction by
Production Management
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GENRE
|
animation, comedy, family and thriller
|
BUDGET
|
30,000,000
|
BOX OFFICE
|
192,000,000
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THEMES
|
legend, myth, relationship, trust, man’s best friend, humane
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AWARDS
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NARRATIVE:
the protagonist- wallace and grommet. more grommet than wallace.
Lady tottey as the damsel in distress
The were Rabbit- unexpected villain- actually wallace
antagonist- victor quartermaine,
Great plot twist- the realisation point is when grommit stumbles upon the half eaten vegetables in wallace’s room and realises that wallace is the were rabbit.
Equilibrium- the part where pesto company are taking care of the rabbits for the neighborhood
disturbance- The first night when the whole neighborhood is calling for pesto.
realisation- when wallace notices his furry rabbit ears.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)