Just Try to Disprove Me Benjamin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ipruujooJQ&feature=related

Ok. So sorry that the clip is long, but it actually begins on 5:02. (Its a really long scene) The actor in question is Woody. The reason why I love Toy Story (the first movie I ever saw in theatres) is that the characters are toys. The toys are animated by the Pixar Studio, and the animation (the film) is voiced-over by actors. ( Tom Hanks in this case) But the magic of Toy Story, is that the characters are so well done, that I do not feel that I am watching trash. I feel immersed in this new world that the film creates for us, believing in the characters, rather than just simply watching them perform and letting 'Hollywood do the rest'.

Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) tells us about actors and cameras. He discusses that actors give off an aura that makes their 'art' on stage unique, and that by subjecting them to the lens of a camera, (such as in film) the actor's 'art' and uniqueness is lost in all the technicalities that a cameraman and cinematographer takes care of. This in turn diminishes the point of the actor's 'art'. "It compromises certain factors of movement which are in reality those of the camera, not to mention special camera angles, close-ups, etc... This is the first consequence of the fact that the actor's performance is presented by means of a camera." (Benjamin, section VIII)

Now, I'm sorry Dr. B that I may not be following directions, but I could not resist. What would Benjamin say about that Toy Story scene that I posted, beginning at 5:02? In my opinion, if Benjamin was following the writing process that we are beginning to learn about, and he just happened to complete his final draft, I believe he would trash his own copy of "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Think about it. He is sitting in a theatre, watching the movie, then boom! A talking toy. Not only a talking toy, but a very realistic looking toy performing at such perfection that the Broadway talents are difficult to compare. And with the talking toy there are beautiful backgrounds and settings that were obviously constructed from an artists' perspective. What can he say? That there is no art in this movie? That the compelling characters do not give off an 'aura'? Could he honestly sit through and finish the movie and not like it in some way? No sane critic who lived in any age of the film industry could.

True, this is not a "real" actor in front of a film set or on a stage, but I really felt like proving a dead Socialist (or Marxist) wrong. "The film responds to the shriveling of the aura with an artificial build-up of the 'personality' outside the studio." (Benjamin, section X) This is a new age of acting Benjamin. An age where visuals in acting no longer comply, but rather, take an auditory approach. Your topic about acting has been disproven. It is no longer viable. "That's not acting, that's performing with style."(quote by me... I think)

The Dark Night Vs. Walter Benjamin

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C0_jDBxJ8w&feature=PlayList&p=83206AE9CBC3AA8D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

 

This scene takes place during the climax of Batman The Dark Night, which premiered July 14, 2008. The film won many awards such as two Oscars for best supporting actor Heath ledger, and Best Achievement of Sound Editing. Even though critics raved about this movie for its genius use of plot and acting, there is still one critic that would have rather this film be transferred to the art of theater

Walter Benjamin, writer of “ The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1935), viewed theater acting as an art that connects the stage with audience. In Benjamin’s essay he argues that because the audience is viewing the film though a lens rather than a stage we can’t see the performance as a whole. In this scene while there is a close up on Batman’s face the audience is not allowed to see the Joker. It is because we cannot see the situation as a whole that we can’t view the Joker’s initial reaction to Batman’s statement. Walter also argues that even this powerful performance by Heath Ledger is nothing but an attempt to satisfy a peace of machinery. The actors in film can never truly satisfy and audience like a theater actor can. An actor of theater can allow himself to adjust to the audience’s emotion during the course of the performance, while an actor of film has no personal connection between the audience and himself.  The audience watching a film cannot truly assess the situation as an entirety because film can only permit us to judging characters by the type of angle or shot that the director allows us too.

Modern popular films have spawned a new breed of actors. With society worried about what stars are wearing, rather than the love they produce on stage, the love of film can only decline.

 

 

Differences in Film and Paintings

A central theme in Benjamin's essay is the contrast between modern film technology and traditional art. He dedicates three sections to analogies of cameramen and artists to the comparison.

In section XI, Benjamin begins, "The shooting of a film, especially a sound film, affords a spectacle unimaginable anywhere at any time before this". Of course by "any time before this" he meant the 1920s, but I believe his theory is still applicable to modern technology. How does a painter compare with a cameraman? Benjamin compares painters to magicians healing. Magicians heal by use of their hands. They heal by keeping a natural distance only intruded upon by physically laying hands upon the patient, which gives them an "authority" over the patient. Similarly, the painter also works with a natural distance between him and his work.

The surgeon is total opposite the magician. He delves deep into the patient; the operation filled with intimate connection. He knows every detail of the patient. The cameraman is like the surgeon, diving into his work, getting every detail about every shot, taking his work fragment by fragment.

In section twelve, Benjamin gives us a little history about art. In the past, art was only enjoyed by the few who were fortunate enough to go see it. For example, only kings and queens owned the best of the art, and if one wanted to see the Mona Lisa, then they had to hop a plane to France and see it in the Louvre. Even in cinema, as Sontag points out, people had to go and see and appreciate film in the theatres. Technology has made art open to anyone. Now, all one has to do to see a painting is search a work on google images. And to see a movie, rent the DVD or even pirate it illegally off the Internet.

Section XIII deals with the perception between film and art. Film has enriched our field of perception with methods made available only through technology. Cameramen can be compared to psychoanalyst in that they break down every movement and detail and facial expression of what or who is being filmed. They can scrutinize and chose which shot they like the best to give us their representation of what is being filmed. In short, film is open to interpretation.

A painting, say one of the hummingbird, shown in this link http://www.jesuspaintings.com/pictures/flower_power.jpg, can only show us so much about the animal. The human eye cannot see what is going on between each beat of the wings. A painter can only speculate what it looks like. So Benjamin's theory that a painter chooses to keep a natural distance from what they are painting is only half true; they are forced, by human limitations, to stand at a distance.

Technology has made a full picture of a hummingbird, with every detail of what goes on between each beat of the wing, possible to grasp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssrv89x7Q2U High definition, slow motion camera eludes all mystery as to how the hummingbird hovers and how many times it's wing beat in a second.

We only see vague detail of the hummingbird in the painting. Clearly, the artist struggled with the painting. The feathers have less-than-impressive detail and the wings are streaked as if the the artist didn't know how to paint them. Probably because she had never benefited from modern technology and seen the bird in a crystal clear picture of film.

The Phantom of the Opera – Think of Me

The Phantom of the Opera – Think of Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-owtQqmHqYM

Phantom of the Opera is a movie within a staged performance. The scene from the Phantom of the Opera shows both “artistic performance of a stage actor presented to the public by the actor in person” as well as “the screen actor, presented by a camera, with a two-fold consequence” (Benjamin, sec VIII).

Section VIII from Benjamin’s essay depicts how the actor and camera work together within a film. Benjamin states, “Film actor lacks the opportunity of the stage actor to adjust to the audience during his performance, since he does not present his performance to the audience in person.” Contradicting to this statement, in Phantom of the Opera, Emmy Rossum who plays the role of Christine does “adjust to the audience during her performance” because (although she is acting) she still has to present herself in front of a live audience to sing (Benjamin, sec VIII). Also in section VIII, Benjamin states, “The sequence of positional views which the editor composes from the material supplied him constitutes the completed film.” Throughout the scene, the camera captures not only Christine on stage, but the audience, the orchestra, and funnels underground beneath the drain to the Phantom. By supplying different shots/angles of the scene, it completes the work of making the film.

Section IX discusses the “aura” presented by the actors in the film. Benjamin states, “…man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it” (Benjamin, sec IX). The “aura” specified in section IX is clearly shown within the role of the Phantom because his presence forever stays with the opera house.

Lastly in Section X, Benjamin reviews the way the actor-audience relationship has changed. What reflected off the mirror (acting on stage for the audience) is now being transportable to the public (example: DVD sales). He quoted, “The distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character. The difference becomes merely functional; it may vary from case to case. At any moment the reader is ready to turn into a writer.” (Benjamin, sec X)Like the quote, Phantom of the Opera displays how Christine, once a dancer, transforms into an opera singer.

Overall, Phantom of the Opera put two different aspects of theater into one movie. What can be seen as a screen actor - TV/movie audience relationship within a film can be also seen as a stage performer – stage audience relationship in this film.

Benjamin's Ideas In Austin Powers

Walter Benjamin makes some interesting points regarding actors in his essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.”  Benjamin states that when watching a film, one cannot truly observe the performance of an integral whole. This means that a lot can be going on that the audience cannot see on stage. This point seems as if it were always a negative aspect and a loss of authenticity. However, in the case of the clip I chose, I believe it actually enhances the viewing experience. Mike Myers is performing the role of three characters in one scene. Benjamin also states, “the audience takes the position of the camera.” This is the reason we are able to view this clip as we do. The audience of Austin Powers: Goldmember would not be able to enjoy the wonderful humor provided to us by Mr. Myers if it were not for film. Yes, perhaps with film we do lose some of the authenticity of the performance, but without film directors would have a hard time producing the type of advanced aspects they do.

Another point that Benjamin makes in his essay is the fact that when critics review a film, they are just simply reviewing a recording, not the actual live performance. This actually is a more consistent way of reviewing, because the performance does not change from nigh to night. Again, although some authenticity may be lost with film because of the fact that stage actors can interact with the audience, it helps interested people have a better basis to decide whether or not they want to see the film.

In conclusion, Walter Benjamin essay has withstood the test of time for the most part. His ideas on the loss of authenticity with film and the fact that viewers actually do observe through the lens of a camera are still accurate. However, some of the uses of camera actually enhance the audiences viewing experience.

 

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nixR6wVa4HY

Question 2

Due 7/1 - 6 PM

Consider our discussion so far of Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Remembering the points outlined in lecture in Monday’s class, your blog assignment requires you to locate media on the internet and provide a Benjamin-inspired reading. You are required to use a few short quotations from the essay.

I have split up the class to cover two different themes in the essay:

If your last name begins with A-L:

Consider Benjamin’s points on actors in relationship to a SHORT movie clip that you can locate online. Link to this clip and then consider how some of Benjamin’s points in Sections VIII, IX, and X can be used to analyze the clip of your actor in action. How does this clip show (or not show) Benjamin’s points?

If your last name begins with M-W:

Consider Benjamin’s points on the differences between film and paintings in sections XI, XII and XIII. Link to a SHORT movie clip and a piece of “traditional art” (sculpture, painting, drawing) that you locate online. Analyze how these show us how film is very different as an effective medium. Use Benjamin’s specific points to dissect the movie clip in contrast to the “artistic image.”

27 Dresses & Sex and the City

Right off the bat, both these movies sound very similar. One may not know exactly why they are similar and when asked why one may respond with "They are both chick-flicks". However, there is more similarities between them than being a "chick-flick".
Both movies are centered around the struggle of a relationship. In 27 dresses, Katherine Heigl's character is constantly the person who assists in a wedding but never gets married herself. Because of this image she has created, everyone around her thinks that she will never experience love and commitment. This pulls her down. Her first "love" is taken away from her by her own younger sister. This causes even more tensions throughout the movie. In comparison, Sex and the city, Sarah Jessica Parker's character is hit with the realization that reality is nothing like a fairy tale. Real life doesn't end once the "happily ever after" event happens. This movie is also centered around the struggle of love. Sarah tries and eventually learns that love is not perfect and there will be ups and downs.
The music in both these trailers are obviously similar as well. The music has an upbeat rythym. This gives the viewer a sense of determination. Heigl is determined to take care of herself instead of other people. Parker is determined to learn to live with the "real world" and not the fairy tale she thought it would be. The music can also be a hint to the ending. I have not seen either of these movies but based on the trailer and the upbeat music i can safely say that they both end "happily ever after".
27 dresses and Sex and the city were able to create an effective way to attack the viewers emotional appeals. The viewers feel sympathy for both the characters because they are struggling with something that everyone has or will experience: love. Since the viewers are familiar with this central idea both these trailers are centered around they can put them in the characters "shoes". The viewers are able to relate with heigl or parker's struggle. This creates a personal sympathetic feeling along with the other emotions in the movie. However, it's not constantly unhappy and miserable. The trailer shows many scenes where the character's crack jokes and do stupid things to spark laughter or smiles. Heigl's friend at the bar and during the Yoga class was able to throw in some jokes to give a sense of hope. The creators of this movie didn't want the viewers to leave with a sense of helplessness. They wanted the viewers to be hopeful about the real world and love.
Both movie trailers were able to connect with the audience through the different images it used. The images are put into s specific order for a purpose. In the beginning the images are pathetic. There are a billion images of wedding dresses but Katherine Heigl is never the one in them. She is in the image of the scene but she is the "helper". It creates a pathetic feeling. However as the trailer progresses the image become more positive. She's out in pumped, high energy scenes instead of being stuck in a wedding chapel miserable. This shows that a happy ending is/will take place. Sex in the City is a little more wishy washy. It starts out with scandalous images of parker and her boy making out and what not. The lighting in most of these scenes are dimmed to create a sensual feeling. But then different images start to show towards the middle. The audience sees Parker by herself or without a man. The light has been reversed back to normal for an everyday sort of feeling. However, as the trailer progresses she is constantly surrounded by her true friends. The scenes are hyped up and eccentric. Parker is learning what reality is and what the fantasy world is not.
Ethics are also inserted into the trailers. The ideals of marriage are put to the test. In 27 dresses, Heigl's "adviser" is a person who does not believe in marriage. He is also similar to Parker's blonde haired friend who is not a believer in marriage either. These two characters are tested in these movies along with the main characters who have been struggling when it comes to marriage. Both of the girls want a happy ending but finds out that it's harder than it seems. It shows both sides of the equation so it can connect with all the people: the believers and the non believers.
All in all, both trailers were affective. They were able to connect with the viewers by using the pathos and ethos appeals. However, these movies would probably not be as affective to men as to women because of the emotional scenes along with the female main characters.

"Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan"

Both Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan have dark themes dealing with war –destruction of humanity. Also, both convey different stories of war. While Black Hawk Down pertains to D-Day during WWII, the other pertains to stopping genocide in Somalia. With the war being the back drop of two trailers, the generalized theme of “hope” is displayed.
“Black Hawk Down” starts with the phrase, “Based on an Actual Event”. By stating this, the viewer is emotional affected. It makes the viewer feel as if they can connect in some level due to the “realness” to the movie. It also starts with a blue, gloomy background that gives off a mysterious outlook of the movie. The “gloominess” makes the viewer feel eerie and uncomfortable. It makes the viewers ask, why? Lots of flashes of different scenes in the trailer show that things are moving fast, and that the movie itself is filled with lots of action. For example, the bomb scenes from the trailer create a sense of insecurity and franticness. In one of the scenes in the trailer, the men are driving off of their military base, and at the background, there is an American flag. The American flag connects the viewers and movie together by showing patriotism. Patriotism = to fight for the sake of humanity. Patriotism also connected with the viewers in a way that was personal. This movie came out a year after the 9/11 attack –at this time, we were in the Iraqi War. In the last scene of the trailer, the blue, gloomy scene is shown again –but this time, the soldiers are running with Somalia kids; connecting the fact that there is hope for everyone.
“Saving Private Ryan” starts off with a scene where a mother is faced with the tragedy of her son’s death . This scene connects with the viewers in a personal level by using emotional appeal. Any mother who faced a death of her son would relate or anybody who experienced a loss of somebody close in their lives would relate. The overall music of the trailer gives off the vibe of “hope”. The background music is slow at first, and it becomes more dramatic as the trailer goes on. Also, the overall color scheme of the movie is “dull”. There’s no lively color –explaining to the viewers that the war is not pretty. With different camera shots –such as close ups on men’s faces, it shows sadness in their eyes. However, a scene where some actors laugh shows a sign of “hope” –that there could be something more than killing people, and facing death.

Overall, the trailers of “Black Hawk Down” and “Saving Private Ryan” were effective. It affected the viewers with emotional appeal as well as keeping the viewers attracted to the movie trailer. However, “Saving Private Ryan” appealed more to women because it seemed more heart touching while “Black Hawk Down” touched more male viewers because of its intense action scenes.

Compare and Contrast “Black Hawk Down” and “Shoot ‘Em Up”

Both films are very similar in genre; what makes them different is how they handle the issue of death and violence.

The two movie trailers for “Black Hawk Down” and “Shoot ‘Em Up”, both have similar qualities as movies but are portrayed in two very different circumstances. Both of the trailers have extensive scenes of guns and violence but each trailer handles it differently. In “Black Hawk Down” the mood set by the background music is somber and ominous; contrasted by “Shoot ‘Em Up” where the music is more upbeat. At one point the music in “Shoot ‘Em Up” is actually very similar to the James Bond theme song, which is a franchise known for its exciting action sequences. In making this connection, the viewer feels that the trailer will be similar to the James Bond films in the past; thus the violence will mostly be mindless and without reason. In contrast to this, “Black Hawk Down” uses the sober music to illustrate the point that each death is a tragedy and no life should be wasted.

In “Shoot ‘Em Up”, killing is put in a positive light, with many scenes of fancy firing techniques and elaborate ways that the characters kill each other. For instance, at the end of the trailer, the ‘good guy’ kills a ‘bad guy’ by shooting the end of a file cabinet and the force of the bullet causes the cabinet to shoot out and smash the man’s face. Now that’s an elaborate way to kill someone. “Black Hawk Down” is toned down significantly, with all the fancy techniques stripped away. The soldiers are fighting for their very lives and are ducking and hiding behind anything they can find. In this trailer, no one is doing flips over a mailroom and shooting people while jumping down stairs.

Bothe of the trailers use the pathos appeal to audiences but in two very different ways. Pathos is used in “Shoot ‘Em Up” by appealing to the audiences’ sense of excitement over guns and the thrill that comes with shooting a gun. The fast paced nature of the trailer also helps build this excitement. If the trailer had been the speed of “Black Hawk Down”, then the same emotion would not have been accomplished. Even though pathos was used in “Shoot ‘Em Up” by the excitement and speed of the trailer, pathos was also achieved in “Black Hawk Down” by the slower, somber pace of the trailer and the choice of music for the trailer.

Lions for Lambs V. Black Hawk Down

The trailers of “Black Hawk Down” (BHD) and “Lions for Lambs” (L4L) appear to portray the war from both an “on the ground” and an “in the office” perspective, respectively.

For the “Black Hawk Down” trailer, the creators tend to focus on the more “real” images in order to appeal to the pathos of the viewer. When dealing with a tragedy as recent as this was, it is very important to keep the emotions of the viewer in mind. Showing the riots and the destruction in Somalia in the beginning helps show the viewer the emotion is real. This is the main difference in the two previews, seeing as “Lions for Lambs” focuses more on logical appeal to the viewer. Starting out with a professor meeting with a student shows the viewer that this movie will be more on the political side of the action spectrum; and the addition of the senator/journalist meetings hit this idea home even farther. Despite this main difference, most trailers build appeal to the ethos through use of naming Robert Redford as the director on “Lions for Lambs” and Jerry Bruckheimer as the producer of “Black Hawk Down.”

Aside from the differences in appeal, the two trailers use of images is relatively similar. They both use images of the environment to build up a relationship with the viewer. This helps in the case of BHD when the viewer can relate to the destruction taking place in the beginning. This attribute also helps out in L4L when the shots of DC and the warzone help show where that part of the trailer is taking place. The shots of DC help show who is making the calls on the war, which brings this movie further into the political debate.
Both previews also have a certain “climax” point where they get systematically more intense with the crescendo of the music. In the case of BHD, this shift is verbal and begins with the screaming of “RPG” while in L4L, it begins when the transport fires its missile.

Though they are arranged quite differently and are trying to attract different audiences, the two trailers both achieve the obvious goal of grabbing the audience’s attention and keeping it. Though the images are different and the objectives of them are different, both are able to compel a viewer to watch their respective movies, thus both have used their different images effectively.

Chad Cavender