Watch at least 3 films from Edison, Lumiere Brothers, and Melies on your own. Go to the Internet Archive, select "Moving Images" from the drop down menu and search for each director. All of the Edison films can be found at the Library of Congress and can be accessedhere. Please be sure to tell me the name of the film and who made it and answer the following questions:
- Do you notice anything particular about the film’s presentation of cinematic space—what you see on the screen? Lots of landscapes or close-ups? Moving or static camera? How does this differ from films you watch today?
- Do you identify with the camera lens? What does the filmmaker compel you to see? What is left to your imagination? What is left out altogether?
Adil Kadwa
ReplyDeleteThomas Edison-The unappreciated joke.(August 8 1903)
In this scene we see a static camera view of a bench being portrayed. The people sitting on the bench are going on with there lives as if they were not aware of Edison filming them. In this movie, a man sits next to his friend and they begin to read their newspapers. Unknown to him, the mans friend must rush to leave somewhere and a young woman sits in his seat. Absorbed in his newspaper, the man fails to notice this and tries to grab the attention of his friend, who he thinks is still there, to show him a comic in the newspaper. He makes rapid gestures at the lady and continually taps her breast area. The woman is appalled and grabs the attention of the man showing him what he's done, leaving him in immense embarrassment and dismay.
In this movie we have one single camera angle, which remains static throughout the entire movie. Besides the obvious absence of audio in this clip, Edison has the bystanders sitting on the bench remain basically still, doing there own thing in the whole clip without anything about them changing in the movie. This draws the audience to focus only on the man who was originally sitting on the bench, the other man who joined him, and the woman who was groped. This entire movie differs from what we watch today in the way that most films are constantly variable in the way that they portray the media shown, using many different lenses, effects, and backgrounds, while Edison's short film is straight to the point with one single lens and background. The sheer absence of these things make it so that Edison is able to leave almost nothing to the imagination, with no secret bits for you to ponder after.
Henry Jarzab
ReplyDeleteLumiere Brothers' "Exiting the Factory"
In this short clip, the viewer is presented with precisely what the title would imply- workers exiting a factory. We see a shot of a factory doorway, with a larger opening to stage left. As the film begins, a multitude of workers, mostly women in substantial white clothing, begin to pour from the two outlets. The rapid exit of the workers induces a feeling of alleviation or decompression, as would be felt by the workers upon dismissal. The landscape is a mid-range shot of the factory doors. The camera itself does not move, however it should be noted it seems to, as individual frames were not lined up perfectly. The film would seem quite bizarre, judged by today's standards, as there is no change in camera angle or range, and, well, nothing happens besides the factory workers departure.
The camera lens focuses, rather appropriately, on the workers "exiting the factory". In compliance with that focal point, the shot shows merely the two exits of the factory, not the inside, the rest of the outside, or anything beyond the factory. The viewer can only imagine what sort of factory it is, what they manufacture, why the workers are leaving, what they do upon leaving, and so on and so forth. The Lumiere brothers, upon showing this film on March 22, 1895, intended merely to show the workers departing, for whatever reason, so they chose to exclude unnecessary additions.
Alfonzo Mancuso
ReplyDeleteEdison: Army Pack Train Bringing Supplies
This film only lasts one minute and fifty seconds, during this one minute and fifty seconds a large group of men on horses carrying supplies are just passing by. Some men seem to notice the camera and others seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that they're being recorded. There is very little movement of the camera. It goes from a close up shot on the right side of the pack, to a distant shot of the pack on the far left. Films that are made today have much more camera movement compared to this one, in this short Edison film the camera only moves once, if it was moved around more and caught more shots from different angles it may have attracted more attention, like films today.
The only thing identified by the camera lens is the pack of horses/men traveling from one place to another, while some of the men acknowledge the camera and make a gesture toward it, and others seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that they're even being recorded. The film maker is trying to show you the main thing this film is about, the army pack, and he wants to capture them in motion. Whats left out of the film is where are these men, where are the going, and where are they coming from. Some things are left out altogether, such as what they are carrying and how long they have been traveling.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZach Jabine
ReplyDeleteIB Film
Period 8
1.Thomas Edison – The Enchanted Drawing
a) This film features a completely static camera – it does not move at all from its position facing the easel and the artist. The shot is not a close up of the artist, but is a bit further away, positioned at a medium range from the easel. It seems clear that Edison wanted to focus on the actions of the artist rather than move the camera to create any different angles or shots. Obviously, as it is an early example of film, it is very different from modern films, lacking any of the fancy camerawork seen in them.
b) The filmmaker (Edison) seems intent on showcasing the artist and his drawings on the easel, which seem to come to life as they are drawn, such as that artist taking a real life top-hat and glass of champagne that he had drawn on the easel. However, the reason for the magical drawings – how the artist can do this, why the drawings are magical – are not shown at all, nor is any attempt made to even hint at a reason, thus leaving it up to the viewer’s imagination.
2.Geroges Melies – The Devilish Tenant
a) This film, like The Enchanted Drawing, also features a mostly static camera, presented at a medium range from the actors. However, Melies makes use of seeming jump-cuts (and I hesitate to call them that, but I don’t have any other word to describe them) to introduce new objects onto the screen, as well as to change scenery. Otherwise, however, the camera stays focused on one particular shot, without pivoting or turning, and only when the setting changes is there any indication of space beyond the scene the camera happens to be focused on at any given time.
b) In The Devilish Tenant, Melies shows us a tenant who has just moved into a new apartment, and is eager to get rid of the landlord and painter to leave himself with the apartment, even pushing said painter out of a window that, on first glance, appears to be a picture. It is then quickly established why he is eager to do so – the man’s suitcase contain a number of things that look as if it would be impossible to fit them in there. No background to the man and his suitcase is ever given, however, and the nature of the two is left to the imagination of the viewer. The man is clearly magical, however, apparently possessing the ability to move the paintings on the walls without touching, and even pulling human children out of his trunk to join him for dinner. But, no explanation is given for these magical powers, and as such, the viewer must wonder of the nature of the man – perhaps hinted at by the title, The Devilish Tenant.
3. The Lumiere Brothers – Exiting the Factory
a) The camera featured in this extremely short film is as static as it gets – it does not move at all. This seems to be just simply a very early film, a sort of “slice of life” of workers leaving a factory – the camera simply stays at an up-close shot of the workers. Of course, this differs highly from modern movies with fancy camera work and editing tricks.
b) In this clip, the filmmakers simply show us a prolonged shot of workers leaving a factory for the day – nothing more, nothing less. The name and place of the factory is not given, as those facts are seemingly unimportant – the focus is entirely on the workers. As such, the film appears to be just an early attempt at using film to capture everyday life.
Lumiere Brothers - "Exiting the Factory"
ReplyDelete1. The cinematic space portrayed in the clip was simply put, workers leaving a factory. The camera itself remained still although the people in the clip were both entering and leaving the factory. Along with this, people on horses were doing the same. There is quite a bit of comparison between this film, and common day films, mainly due to the look and sound. It is in black and white, and it's completely silent. Common day films are the opposite.
2. The camera comes off as choppy to an extent. The Lumiere Brothers mainly made this film to show movement in the form of people walking about, and going in and out of a factory. In my opinion, I think it would be better to have sound, because you can get a feel on what people were saying, and what the atmosphere sounds like, rather than silence.
Thomas Edison - “The Enchanted Drawing”
1. The cinematic space in this clip is just a man drawing a picture of a face with a twist. Throughout the time of him drawing, the clip would cut to a different shot of the same man, but the drawing would have an interesting change in it. The camera had static to it, but it remained in a single spot. A main difference would be the camera quality from then and now. It’s in a small frame, and the black and white camera was mainly black, except the paper. Things are in such better quality in our day and age.
2. Edison wanted to show off how a film can change into a different shot and it was done in a fun and imaginative way. I did identify with the camera lens mainly due to the stage presence of the magician. He made it silly and fun to watch. I don’t think anything was left out because it had the elements that a 1900 film should have.
George Melies - “The Conjuror”
1. The cinematic space represented was of a man and a women performing a routine of illusions. The camera was at a medium shot, and it was very shaky and a lot of static. This was the very beginning of film so I don’t think that it’s a big deal. If there was an illusion from a movie nowadays, there would be a lot of different angles, and special effects to pull off a trick, along with sound.
2. Melies made the motive of tricking the audience into thinking that the illusion was an actual trick, when in reality, it was just different shots. Something that I wish was different was that it didn’t move so quickly, that way you can get a feel for what the trick is actually trying to be. Either way, it’s cool seeing how something like this can be done in 1899.
1. Childish Quarrel - The Lumiere Brothers
ReplyDeleteOn the screen are two upset babies/toddlers sitting in their own respective high-chairs, upset about who is holding the big silver spoon or that the other has something in their tray that the they do not. The spacing of this short film is pretty much symmetrical, there is one child on each side of the screen although they are on a slight slant. The camera lens is a close up on the children as to see their expression and objects of envy. The camera does not move, staying static on the subject of the quarreling babies. There is no plot in this movie, no rising action, climax, or resolution which is unlike the movies one would see today. The film is simply of life as it happens naturally with no acting. In addition to this difference, in past and modern film, is the duration. The timing is brief so that the film is happening only when the two are upset, lasting but a mere 45 seconds.
I feel a connection to the camera lens because we only see the two young children quarrel over something so small, therefore there is nothing to distract from the short movie's subject. The static camera also allows us to view both babies at the same time, seeing ones reaction to the others action. Where the children are is left to our imagination. We see that they are outside but is it their backyard? A park? We also only have our imagination to guess where the babies got their toys and what their relationship is, as well as their gender. Completely left out altogether is the children's parents or supervisor. We see no resolution to their quarrel nor how it all started and how they got to their setting. Regardless of the unknown, viewers feel a sort love go out to these babies as they take turns crying about spoons and bonnets, captivating their onlookers with their sweet innocence.
2. Le Mélomane - George Melies
ReplyDeleteWith a musical staff on the top of the screen/set, Melies uses a landscape shot with a background of a small village in the distance. There is a whimsical director, who throws up the treble clef and proceeds to throw up replicas of his heads to be music notes, as well as a back up band. The camera is static as to not lose sight of the musical staff and the conductor which is the subject of the short movie, as the title means "the music lover". The screen by screen special effects are much more outdated than anything we would see today in a modern film, although they are brilliant for their time. Once again, the length of the movie (1 minute) is unlike anything we would view today. There is no plot to the movie and the fact that the film is about music but we hear nothing while watching it seems a bit bizarre.
The camera lens, being static, doesn't contribute to feeling manipulation for me during this film. It leaves us with a wide shot with a lot to feast on with our eyes, from the jolly conductor, who throws things up onto the staff that surprisingly stick, to the making of music with drums, singing, and conducting that isn't actually heard. What this tune and rhythm sounds like is up to our imagination, as well as the cause for the happy music.
3. The Unappreciated Joke - Thomas A. Edison
ReplyDeleteIn this brief film, we see a landscape shot of 3-4 people in what appears to be a train car. A man comes and sits in-between those who have already claimed a seat, and reads his newspaper. He finds something comical and laughs and laughs, trying to show other the source of his amusement. The static camera shows us viewers the main subjects effect on the small controlled group around him. They are annoyed. This movie is different from films today because the camera does not move one bit, the movie is 52 seconds long, it lacks sound, and consists of one shot. However, we see what is going on before the amused man sits down, we see him read the joke, and we see peoples reaction to his outwardly displayed enthusiasm for the joke. It then ends after he ducks out of the shot, this all being some kind of plot/form.
I can identify with the camera lens because we see a small group of people, therefore letting our eyes focus on the main event of the short film. I am drawn in by the mans humor and desire to share his joke with others. The filmmaker compels us to see the obvious amusement the man gets and the frustration and annoyance everyone else around him reacts with. The man slaps his knee and waves his arm as he cracks up about something he read in his newspaper. What this snippet of information, or joke, is however, is left to our imagination. We viewers can only guess why he finds it funny and no one else does, where these people are coming from, and where they are going.
Lumiere Brothers' "Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat"
ReplyDeleteThe camera lens in this film is peculiarly positioned. It is at a certain spot from which the viewer can see the train as it pulls in, but the front moves out of view shortly thereafter. In the background, the foggy ridge of a mountain is just visible, interpretable as the train returning from a foreign, unpopulated destination far away. The camera is static, placed away from the crowd, perhaps to allow them to be seen boarding. A film today would most definitely have the lens follow the front of the train, as would a person's eye upon sight of the train. It might have followed the protagonist or antagonist entering a train car, if they happened to be there. That is to say, a modern piece would focus not on the train, but the action surrounding it.
Personally, to me the camera lens seems as though it were that of a security camera at the train station. It isn't organic or cinematic in the modern sense. The filmmaker's spotlight is on the train, and later the crowd boarding it. As with many early films, that may simply be because of the title- "Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat". What else would be shown? Left out are the identities of the passengers, the precise location of the train station, the train's destination and previous location, and the one character's motivation for choosing to run to the train's front.
Lumiere Brothers' "Exiting the Factory"
In this short clip, the viewer is presented with precisely what the title would imply- workers exiting a factory. We see a shot of a factory doorway, with a larger opening to stage left. As the film begins, a multitude of workers, mostly women in substantial white clothing, begin to pour from the two outlets. The rapid exit of the workers induces a feeling of alleviation or decompression, as would be felt by the workers upon dismissal. The landscape is a mid-range shot of the factory doors. The camera itself does not move, however it should be noted it seems to, as individual frames were not lined up perfectly. The film would seem quite bizarre, judged by today's standards, as there is no change in camera angle or range, and, well, nothing happens besides the factory workers departure.
The camera lens focuses, rather appropriately, on the workers "exiting the factory". In compliance with that focal point, the shot shows merely the two exits of the factory, not the inside, the rest of the outside, or anything beyond the factory. The viewer can only imagine what sort of factory it is, what they manufacture, why the workers are leaving, what they do upon leaving, and so on and so forth. The Lumiere brothers, upon showing this film on March 22, 1895, intended merely to show the workers departing, for whatever reason, so they chose to exclude unnecessary additions.
Thomas Edison's "The Enchanted Drawing"
This short film shows a large easel, with a small amount of black space on either side- just enough for the artist to stand in without obstructing our view of the paper. Between the two, the view is closer to a close up than a landscape, although I do not believe it is either technically. The camera does not move throughout the movie, allowing the shots to melded almost seamlessly. This is surprisingly close to similar scenes today. While I cannot produce another movie that has included such a scene, I am quite certain it would be done in a like manner.
I do identify with the lens; it feels as though I am in the audience of a magic show, in which the gentleman is somehow procuring corporeal objects from drawings. Edison compels us to see how the drawing's feature's change over time, and does a remarkable job of it. Like any magic trick, it is left to our imagination just how it was pulled off, but that is of secondary significance to the simple fact it was pulled off. Also left out is the man's purpose in performing such a conjuration, his (possible) audience, and if this is intended to be a trick or actual magic.
1) “Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat,” by the Lumiere Brothers.
ReplyDeletea) What may passively be perceived as a collection of nameless faces awaiting, and eventually boarding a train to depart, is much more when the filmmakers decisions and methods in filming are considered. Although the camera remains static throughout the entire shot, there is a certain depth created by the positioning of the camera. The placement is on a diagonal, so that the railroad seems to vanish into the beyond, and ultimately create the illusion that the train’s length is infinite. The people seem to remain aloof from the cameraman, as if they are unaware, or perhaps to focused on their own tasks. Due to the stillness of the shot I believe this is drastically different than a modern day film; however, this film as a whole can be compared to a clip for a modern day documentary. In its entirety, and in contrast with more advanced films, it is less only in the sense of camera movement and function. That said, I believe the simplicity allows for beauty to be portrayed in its most natural form.
The audience identifies with camera lens, being that it is almost as if they become the camera lens. They are able to view the events that unfold as if they are there, staring at the same point toward which the lens is facing. Figuratively speaking, they are the lens that ponders the images presented before them. Through the basic stillness of the camera, the Lumiere Brothers capture the essence of the movement of the people, thus allowing the audience to comprehend the constant continuity of the flow of traffic in and out of this train stop. In the obvious absence of the sound, the viewer is left to imagine the commotion as unknown people board and depart from the train which has just arrived. The audience is unaware of the train’s next destination, in addition to its origin. Imagination leads to wondering the following: Where are they going? Has something pulled or pushed them to do so? Who are they going to see? (etc.) Again, the simplicity of this film allows for so much mystery to unfold, endless questions left unanswered, an art that is dwindling in the modern day.
2) "The Devilish Tenant," by George Melies
ReplyDeleteA mystical depiction of a man with a seemingly enchanted suitcase moving into his new residence harbors no aiding camera maneuvers such as close ups, landscapes, focusing, etc. Throughout the film there are cuts from room to room as the new tenant is showed his corridor. A pleasant rarity to silent films is present, however. The slides appear colored, seemingly hand painted. This, in accordance with the intriguing, surreal nature of the man's magical suitcase, of which obscure and monumental sized furniture is continuously removed to decorate the room, makes up for the absence of close ups, landscapes, focusing, etc. where it otherwise may have been boring.
The viewer identifies with the camera lens with the common idea that the lens' field of view is identical to ours as well. We are the same in what we see, and we see, capture, and perceive, although the camera remained static throughout the film, and we have the ability to move and enlarge our field of view. The filmmaker compels the audience to be amazed by the antics of this mysterious man, with an even more mysterious suitcase. There is an antirealism to the film, obviously, but it is interesting to ponder the verisimilitude it may have appealed to the films earliest viewer's. Imminently, we are left to ponder the curiousness of the origin of both the man and his suitcase.
3) "Buffalo Dance," by Thomas A. Edison
ReplyDeleteThe film begins as what appears to be a documentation of a Native American ritual or dance. The camera remains static throughout the entire film, never leaving the three men performing some type of tribal movement. No close ups were utilized, nor landscapes. The simplicity of the film allowed for a deeper focus and appreciation for the performance occupying the screen.
The viewer identifies with the lens, as someone witnessing a stage performance of this exact event firsthand. Metaphorically, the lens is the live audience staring directly at what is unraveling before them. In the absence of sound, one is left to consider the beat and music the individuals displayed are so obviously moving to. The filmmaker compels you to focus on, and appreciate the beauty of the dance, and forces you to realize the substance of different cultures.
Makayla Patton “A New Way of Traveling” Thomas Edison 1904
ReplyDeleteThe film’s presentation for cinematic space was very small. The camera stayed in one place, but did have a different angle shot when the three people were actually traveling. Everything was landscapes and from one distance. It was a static camera. Differs heavily from the films we watch today because Edison actually hand colored this film so everything was three colors. The colors were white, light purple, and black and everything around the characters were black except the characters themselves and some parts of the background that Edison wanted us to see. There was no sound and the actors were way more dramatic then in films today. It was as if Edison was just filming a play that was taking place because of the stage the characters were on with the painted background. Edison left to my imagination the relationship between these two people, how they actually got around on a floating barrel, and their purpose or real destination for traveling.
Serpentine Dances- Edison
ReplyDeleteArrival of a Train at La Ciotat- Lumiere
A Trip to the Moon- Melies
1. In Edison’s films there are usually one or two people in the shot. He also uses close-ups opposed to landscapes. The Lumiere Brothers use landscapes and usually film large groups of people in everyday life. Melies is unique because he has lavish sets and creates a story instead of just filming an action. Melies also uses landscape. All of the film makers use a static camera.
2. Edison & the Lumiere Brothers both just film certain moving actions because they were some of the first to create the moving image. Nothing is really left out or left to the imagination because of how simple the films are. Melies however makes a story with Wizards and aliens in one of the first sci-fi movies ever made. The images draw you in to watching the story. Everything is left to the imagination in A Trip to the Moon.
Adil Kadwa
ReplyDelete#2 Buffalo Stockyards- Thomas Edison
Firstly, it is clear to me that Edison uses his cinematic space wisely, using most of the space available to be covered by his subject(s), the horses pulling train parts. Also, there is no fluctuation of distance between the subject in the entire short movie, because Edison only one view and keeps the camera static. This differs from films we watch today because today's films incorporate many different effects, angles, and movement of the camera while Edison uses none of these. Nonetheless , Edison still incorporates an immense amount of detail in his film.
I can identify with the camera lens in such a way that I feel as if the camera lens' are my eyes as I observe the "Buffalo Stockyards" and notice the business displayed in the era of hard labor and technological advancements. Edison compels me to see countless horses and men enter the stockyards with technology to improve lives(Train parts). Edison leave very little to my imagination, showing me all that needs to be seen. The only things that could not have been answered, and have been left out altogether, is why all these people decided to come to one area all at once. In a short film of less than a minute, essentially a town full of people enter the stockyards to progress and make advancements.
#3 Military Camp at Tampa, Taken From Train- Thomas Edison.
In this film, Thomas Edison finally makes more use of his cinematic space. For instance, instead of having a static camera angle throughout the whole film, the camera was moving, even if it was not moving independently. In this film the viewer see's many more landscapes, and is able to identify the surrounding area without trouble, easily noticing that it is in the middle of a wooded area. This entire film differs from what we watch today not just because of the absence of sound but also because of how there is no clear plot or
pre-anticipated climax, rather, the film is direct and to the point while also immersing the viewer in a plethora of different views and images.
I identify with the lens in the sense that Edison makes you feel as if you are right there with him on the train, making this Edison film very different from others that he made. The film compels you to wander your eyes viciously all over the screen because of how fast the train is moving and how everything you see in one second is gone the next. This leaves you scrambled for information and much is left to the imagination. For example, one might ponder why the men and women are there in the military camp in the first place, how they could live so easily in what seems an odd location, and why they are there in the first place.
Alfonzo Mancuso
ReplyDeleteLumiere Brothers: “Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat”
In the short film about the arrival of a train, the space in the film is taken advantage of by the train. The train starts off out of the frame, than eventually starts to make its way closer and closer to the camera, almost appearing as the train is coming straight for the viewers. The train’s close up is probably the most important part of the film because that’s what the fifty-second film is based on. It focuses on the train’s arrival to the camera frame, which is all together one big close up. The way the camera is used is the static camera which gives more attention to the film, if the camera was moving, it might have seemed that the train wasn’t coming as close as it was in the static camera.
I do identify with the camera lens because I feel like I can connect to the film, I feel like the film shows me how close ups can effect the audiences feel toward the film because the way the camera is placed and the way the camera is so close to the train creates a sense of excitement for the viewers because it makes them feel like the train is coming right at them. The filmmaker is trying to show the audience the feeling of excitement by placing the camera so close to the train and positioning it so the train starts off from out of the frame and makes its way through the frame and seems like its coming straight for the audience. What I don’t understand is how no one in the film gives any attention toward the camera; even the people getting off the train don’t even acknowledge it.
Geroges Melies: The Devilish Tenant
One thing that is highly emphasized in this film is space. This whole six-minute film is mostly oriented around the idea of defying space. The way that the filmmaker defies space is by taking a pretty big box, and has the devilish tenant pull lots and lots of furniture out. He pretty much is holding a whole living room in one box. There aren’t any important close ups in this film but another thing I realized was unlike the other films, in this one you can see people walking in and out of the frame and you see other people disappear. The camera style used in this film is static camera, if the camera was moving then the audience probably wouldn’t have focused on the idea of defying space as much as the camera angle moving around while all the action is going on.
The lens acts as our view point into the film, but the camera lens wants us to think that were not suppose to see what’s going on, because the moment one of the men leave the room, the tenant starts to go crazy and does his “devilish” actions. The filmmaker wants us to see how he defies the laws of space by putting gigantic objects into smaller objects and how he folds up certain objects to make them smaller and more portable. One thing that’s left to the audience’s imagination in how does the tenant defy the law of space.
1. Edison: Interrupted Lovers
ReplyDeleteIn this short film of less than 30 seconds, two lovers are captured in a wide shot. The camera is static, leaving the audience this single window in which to view the couple. In this movie a couple are enjoying a romantic moment on a bench in a forest when two men approach them and begin disrupting them, chasing both the male and female in opposite direction. The viewer is given no context as to why they are interrupted or who was attacking them.
The camera lens focuses on only a small space somewhere in the forest. The audience sees only this couple. The filmmakers use this small space to their advantage by having the attackers approach from outside the space, making their sudden arrival a surprise. The same happens when the couple are sent in different directions out of view of the camera lens, inferring that there is space outside the lens. This allows one to identify with the unsuspecting couple.
2. The Lumière Brothers: Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat
ReplyDeleteIn this short film the audience is given a view of passengers waiting at a railway and the arrival of a train. The camera is static and is positioned in such a way that the train seems to appear from the endless fog that stretches from the mountain ridges in the background. As well the train seems to grow as it approaches. This position while, not rare, is not a very common way that trains are portrayed in modern cinema. Modern technology allows several angles of a train to be explored including the front as it is moving.
Although the train is clearly the most prominent figure in the shot, it occupies nearly as much space as the people awaiting to board the train. In a way one could identify with the lens as a passive viewer of the train arrival, but the lack of movement makes this less organic. There doesn’t seem to be a very strong focus on neither the train nor the passengers.
3. Méliès: The Devilish Tenant
ReplyDeleteIn this short film the audience is given a wide shot of two rooms. The room where the staff of the residence convenes and the room in which the tenant intends to reside. The latter room is shown most prominently; the former room is only featured briefly towards the beginning and end of the film. The newly arrived tenant is shown by a man to a room that he will assumingly occupy. After she leaves a large series of events takes place. After seemingly murdering a man on a latter after throwing him from a window he begins to unpack his bag, pulling outrageously large furnitures like magic and placing arranging them in the room. After the man returns he goes into a panic, in utter disbelief at the quick furnishment. The furniture begins to magically attack him. The tenant panics and begins returning the items to his suitcase. An officer arrives to apprehend him, but he too is packed away into the suitcase, allowing the tenant to escape from the window.
A lot of interesting things are being done here. The camera lens allows the filmmakers to manipulate space by showing to separate rooms. The wide view lends itself to the frantic movements of the characters around the larger room. Time is manipulated, allowing the illusion of large pieces of furniture to be pulled from a small suitcase. As well Melies has characters that exit the frame, suggesting that there is more space outside of it and giving the illusion of a real living place.
Jeremiah Sanders IB Film
ReplyDelete1. What I notice particular about the film’s presentation of cinematic space is more of a close-up than modern films, I see a lot of static camera instead moving camera, and this differ a lot from the films I watch today is when the acting is a lot more over the top instead of a more focus for real life. And also there is no sound compare to modern films.
2. What do I identify with the camera lens is a static camera angle and hardly any movement. The filmmaker compels you to see a lot of narrative and later in film history a lot of space to tell the story of the movie. What is left of my imagination is mainly what happens to a lot of the characters, to tell what happening to the characters and what their intentions are. What is left out altogether is the narrative itself and its verisimilitude.