Author Archive

This is my portfolio. Enjoy!

Portfolio

Comments Comments Off on Cindy’s portfolio

I am not sure if people see my evidence and analysis because it’s very different from writing…but enjoy!

-Cllick here to the script->

Comments 10 Comments »

Based on the impression that Eisenstein’s essay gave me before, when I knew that Verto was a Russian filmmaker, I have got bad feeling about this essay that it would be very interesting but very difficult to understand. For me, it seems like any Russian cinematic and artistic idealism is always abstract and difficult.

I have never read a manifesto before. In Verto’s manifesto, the first word that drew my attention was “WE”. He seems to separate himself and his people from the ordinary filmmakers and I think this would be one of the Harvey’s elements- stance. Thanks to this unique writing style, I can even imagine the way he read this manifesto. We have discussed that there were many important things or more like the main points of the manifesto on Monday. “’Cinematography’ must die so that the art of cinema may live.” After I have read the whole essay, I think what Verto meant by “the art of cinema” is the ability that cinema showing the truth. And I still don’t understand what the actual meaning of “’cinematography’ must die”. How could it possible that there is not cutting, editing and any other technical things in a film? I think it certainly can film something smoothly but that would require a lot of manipulation in order to film “perfectly”. Plus, this would not be the case of showing the truth. Moreover, I think a film without cutting, without editing is like a essay without “stitching”, it would be so hard to draw people attention and people would be confused that what the most important ideas are in the essay or in the film.

Verto also said about the “cinema eye”, he said that we should not trust our human eyes because they are not perfect while the “cinema eye” is more perfect “for the exploration of the chaos of visual phenomena that fits space” ( 15). This idea is totally new and weird to me because it conflicts the thought I have as I think a filmmaker should use camera as a tool to convey his/her ideas and observation and that would be what Verto said “copy the work of our eye”.( 83, Kinoks-Revolution, Selections) I mean, I think copying from what one have seen and what one have thought or conceived about is always the main idea I have about films and their makers. I can hardly imagine what it would be like if there is no any idea behind the making of a film. The camera would be like shooting things around without any goal and the audiences would not even understand what the theme of the film is. Verto said that he wanted to become a poet and I think that’s why he wrote some parts of the essay in a poetic way and the example is the poem on page 92 of Kinoks-Revolution, Selections.

Although we have found evidences in Verto’s essay which support his ideas, I still think this essay is petty empty and it is embarrassing to say that, for me, this essay is just like a psycho talking something unrealistic and nonsense. Maybe Harvey would say that this is not a good academic essay since the evidences didn’t support the thesis well.

Comments 5 Comments »

Sorry about the aeroplanes.

Comments Comments Off on Community Interview Film

It is no doubt that Sherman uses Harvey’s elements of academic writing for her article. The title “Projecting the Self” and the subtitle “Filmic Technique and Construction” give readers an idea who should read this article and what this article is about. She started the first paragraph with the thesis which is “Film is always a construction.” I believe that this is the “main insight or idea” of this chapter, as she has mentioned with using the subtitle. The other subtitles she used in this article such as “Editing ‘Truth’ ”, are also interesting and “Editing Truth” is a paradox since, normally, truth cannot be edited.

I think Sherman believes that the necessary of the use of narration should depend on the content of the film and thus she quoted Hawes’s and Ferris’s opinions and their words. And these are the evidences which support her idea. Moreover, she did used orienting because she introduced who Hawes is: “Hawes, who used narration for Pizza Pizza Daddy-O,…” . This helps readers become familiar to Hawes.

When Hawes’s comments is ended, Sherman mentioned that there were directors had different ideas from Hawes’s and this is how “stitching” works since Harvey mentioned writer should use “stitching” to introduce a new idea. She also tends to cut a comment into pieces and uses a little paragraph to “stitch” them up. Besides introducing a new idea, Sherman also used these “stitchings” to remind readers what they should pay attention about the comment. If she had just quoted the whole comment, readers would be easy to miss important ideas and thus cutting a comment into pieces and using “stitching” can ensure readers to notice what Sherman wants them to do so. And I think this is Sherman’s writing style.

Comments Comments Off on Sherman does uses Harvey’s “elements”

Enjoy!

Comments 5 Comments »

In the introduction of ‘First principles of documentary’, Grierson started to talk about a little bit of documentary’s history. I was surprised that it was first only used for travelogue. Besides, he was saying about ‘different intentions of and different quality of documentary’ and I started thinking about Wiseman’s idea of ‘subjective’. Though Grierson never mentioned about a documentary should be objective or not, I believe that he would agree Wiseman’s idea about ’every films is subjective’ because every documentaries involved ‘intentions’.

Grierson mentioned 3 basic principles of documentary. At first, I didn’t really understand how cinema’s potential could transform a reality to art. As I continued, I found that there was a brilliant example for the first principle – ‘…realist documentary, with its streets and cities and slums and markets and exchanges and factories, has given itself the job of making poetry where no poet has gone before it..‘ . It made me realized that maybe shooting one single subject in the real world cannot be aesthetic and meaningful, but shooting more than one subjects that are related to each other in reality can achieve that since I think it is just like a symphony. For the second and the third, I agree that ’original actors and scenes’ are better than scenes and actor that are managed before the shooting, otherwise the film is not showing how exactly the world is thus this is not documentary because I believe everything in the documentary is naturally happened and so that things in it are real. Moreover, I think that no matter how good the actors acted in the film, the film is still imitating but not showing reality and that cannot achieve ‘an intimacy knowledge’. As a result, it is purely an entertainment.

After proposing the principles, Grierson tried to make readers to understand his points by making many examples of documentary films. However, every time when I read this kind of article, what I need to do is not only to go through the ideas but also need to watch those films to see if Grierson’s points are incisive or not or maybe I have different opinions. One really needs to spend time to understand this kind of article and it makes me start thinking that every persuasive forms, like film and article, which try to express ideas are targeted certain kinds of audience and maybe this is why there are endless objections.

Comments 3 Comments »

1.Zarraf is talking about his first movie in his life.
2.Close-up of Cindy’s confused face.
3.Close-up of a monkey scratching its head and showing a confused face.
4.Zarraf is talking about the talking pig.
5.Close-up. A pig.(It doesnt necessarily show a talking pig.)
6.Zarraf is talking about Indian movie.
7.Showing an Indian girl who is dancing ‘belly dance’.
8.Zarraf is talking about his philosophy class.
9.Showing a surprised face (because ‘Philosophy’seems it is a big and special thing to do for me.)
10.Zarraf is talking about interesting things in Philosophy class.
11.Student who looks so tired and he throws books and notes on a table and sits down and studys hard.
12.A working ox on the field.
13.Zarraf nods his head when he talks about he likes Queens College.
14.Showing people walking around in Queens College and on every benches, there are students who are waiting for classes and reading books.
15.A picture of hell and devil’s smiling face.
16.Zarraf is talking about the English 110 class.
17.Again. Close-up. The hard-working student fall asleep.
18.Close-up. A hand of a falling man hits the ground.
19.Zarraf’s face. (The end of the interview.)
20.Long shot. Slowly away from the hard-working student and close the door of the room where the student is in.

Comments Comments Off on Eisenstein script

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar