Week 1

I have always enjoyed film- I love the experience of going to the show, buying some popcorn and a cherry coke and escaping for a few hours-possibly more on the once in awhile movie hop experience! However, I did cringe a bit in class when Professor used the example of the Wedding Planner as to get a point across-since I actually enjoyed the movie and will watch when its played over and over again on TBS or TNT.
I have had very little experience studying film- a bit in an undergraduate course entitled "Celebrity and Spectacle" and thus I look forward to delving further into the experience and studying the subject with a critical angle. I am curious to see what about movies makes me feel that "experience." I think I am further interested in learning to study the various aspects of a movie. This week, I did the readings, then watched the movie. I tried to pay special attention to what Arnheim discussed in his Film As Art piece. I tried to be aware of camera angles, shooting from up above, below, behind, in front of the character in order to feel something different. At times, we saw exactly what the narrator saw, sometimes we became the never-seen questioner. In conversation, we saw only the reaction to the listener. During the fighting seen on the beach, we as the viewer felt the action as if we were one of the fighters. One part of Arnheim's piece really stuck with me "In a good film, every shot must be contributory to the action" (40). In Rashomon, I tried to remain very conscience of where the camera was, what I was seeing, and who the camera was following at the time. I however question who decides if the shot is contributory to the action? Where does art and good camera angles intersect?
Furthermore, in Depth and Movement it states, "Nevertheless we are never deceived; we are fully conscience of the depth, and yet we do not take if for real depth. While I recognize this is discussing location on the screen-what does it matter if we are deceived?This whole article was really interesting. I thought it somewhat easily explained the difference between stage and the screen. I especially noticed in Rashomon the fact "phenomena" of movement and that oftentimes moving objects are more easily noticed than the impressions of the whole field through which the movement is carried out. There were many times in Rashomon that I felt like I was the one running on the beach or through the forest-then the camera would pan out and we would see the whole picture, then only a portion again, and then even more of the whole picture. Each angle offered the viewer a different experience. Arnheim discusses that "It is in the nature of a scene that what is happening should not be obvious to the audience. In order to obtain a special effect, the artist works exactly contrary to the principle to the most characteristic view. I would like to discuss this vs. the idea of the most obvious angle for the shot and how they work with one another and not against. This was a confusion for me in the Arnheim piece.
At the end of the film, the woodcutter says "Its hard to trust anyone....have to suspect everyone" This quote made me think back to the readings and our discussion in class. The idea of depicting reality or fantasy. The fact that we see the story in flashbacks through various characters, the viewer has to make the decision on who is telling the truth. And yet, I kept asking myself-do I care who is telling the truth? At the end of the viewing, is that the aspect the viewer is supposed to be focused on? Many if not all films lie on one level or another. Special effects, dishonest narrators, tricky camera angles, varying flashback scenes all show something different. These may "trick" or "lie" to the viewer- but is that ok if the experience of watching the movie is still a positive one? The film still made think, it was stimulating and thus-is this enough?