-18.4-

Over the weekend, I took a tour of Denison (a small, liberal arts college in Ohio), and I must say...if you want to convince me to go to your college, just introduce me to the cinema house (And have a good bio program, small classes, band, and low cost that also helps!)
I've never visited the film building on a college tour (sadly, most of the college tours opted to show the football field instead of the art buldings) and the first thing I saw was a huge (about my chest height), old-fashioned, camera from the early movies. It got me excited, because I've only seen those in "The Artist," and "Hugo."

It looked something like this

Although the camera was only for display, a film major showed me some old technology that still was in use.
Like the photography class in Herricks, the Denison film class starts with the basics before going digital: they shoot and develop film with traditional techniques.
I haven't paid much attention to traditional film making, but seeing all of the different machines people had to use gave me a new appreciation for how quickly we are able to shoot and edit film today! For example, the film major took me to a room where an old film editor was. She gave a brief overview of the process, and mentioned how hard adding sound was to the movies (Most graduates used the machine for silent films, because adding sound was that hard!)
Although I'll probably stick with digital, it was fascinating to see how people had to film in the older days.

http://denison.edu/get-to-know-denison/cinema-house

-17.4-

A few weeks ago I attended the Gold Cost Film Festival's "Great Shorts 1."
I attended "Great Shorts 2" last year, and was looking forward to another great viewing of short films, and I was disappointed.

...Ok, I was only a little disappointed, but that was because there weren't any animated shorts (last year I remember seeing a few really creative ones.)

The shorts had extremely interesting concepts, many of them addressing modern issues. All of the films were realistic, and in a modern setting. I'll do a one-sentence summary and small, three-sentence review since there were a lot of shorts:

THE COME UP: A screen writer's quirky scam in order to get the funds to execute his film.
I wasn't terribly impressed with the plot until the end. The short was a chase scene, which cutely utilized film sets and movie props as weapons, but it didn't seem too original. At the end there was a clever plot twist (the chaser turned out to be the real thief), and this slightly redeemed the short.

THE EXCHANGE: In a world where people trade shares of themselves, an ex-girlfriend takes revenge.
The concept of this film was interesting, but the characters annoyed me; both main characters seemed not to have any redeeming features (the guy only cared about himself, and the ex was very nasty). The end, however, was amusing when the ex bought her boyfriend. I like how she flipped his break-up line "it's not personal, it's business" into "it's not business, it's personal."

DRONE: A military drone operator's morning routine.
The acting and tone of the film was excellent. The film seemed so surreal with the setting of a drone operator working alone in an office  contrasted with the setting of his target in a desert thousands of miles away. The acting of the operator was at its peak the moment the drone dropped the bomb; it seemed like a video game, but when the operator started crying you realized the gravity of the situation.

FIRST THE WORST: Two young children debate who has the worst life.
This short was too short. The concept was cute, and the acting from the two kids was amazing. I loved the electricity between them when they were arguing over who had the worst life.

POSTMODERN TIMES: A humorous look at the modern lifestyle of increasingly-omnipresent technology.
I haven't seen the Charlie Chaplin film this short was based off of, and I'd like to. A well-done satire on modern technology...I loved the scene where the woman goes to work in her home office, and has to deal with multiple video chats and telephone calls. The scene where the power goes out, and the woman and her neighbor meet each other in real life was hilarious, yet painful (both were only dressed from the hips-up, since that's the only part visible in webcams.)

THE AUDITION: A short satire about how cut-throat the auditioning process is.
Exaggeration really makes this movie. I really like how the movie comes in a circle, beginning with the woman auditioning as "clipboard woman," progressing into the woman vomiting on command, then ending with the woman introducing herself as "clipboard woman" before leaving. It was hard to watch, but the message was clear.

SEPARATE WE COME, SEPARATE WE GO: A short about a girl and a friendly grown-up bonding.
One of the darker films in the short, the acting in this movie was very good. One of my favorite lines from the whole day was something along the lines of, "A boy in my class wanted to sail to France in a frying pan so he'd be kept warm."The transition from growing up fast, to momentarily regaining innocence was done well.

TIME FREAK: An inventor becomes caught up in the minutiae of daily life...and time traveling.
This short gave time travel a fresh light, which I respect, and I loved the inclusion of humor (the seriousness of the situation becomes insidious with the movie being mainly humorous). The acting was great, the actor of time traveller character really got across the transition from a slightly nerdy guy, to an OCD mad scientist. The ending came up a little short, however, because the character of the friend is now stuck in the past since he convinces his friend to not build a time machine (but I suppose it's believable, since he did make a snap judgement.)

SUDDEN DEATH!: Two scientists must battle a disease that causes sudden singing and dancing, while dealing with their true feelings of affection.
This film was hilarious in that it was a mock musical (it vaguely reminded me of Dr. Horrible), however the plot was a little confusing. The film felt a little long at times, too. I liked at the end the cast broke off into their ordinary lives before finishing the last line of the song...the sudden jump into reality made the film even more humorous!
---
After the shorts, there was a short discussion with the lady who chose all of the films (there was going to be a Q&A with the directors, but no one showed up). Apparently, anyone can submit shorts! ...Could this be a future project for STAC?

-16.4-

I believe the Shakespeare workshop, taught by James III, was my first pure acting workshop in STAC. I enjoyed it, but felt a little shy because I'm not usually an 'acting' person.

As I discussed when writing about the Shakespeare documentaries, Shakespeare IS about debating the meaning of the work, and presenting your results on stage, but it's also about making sure the audience can see your actions (it's also about getting used to speaking in iambic pentameter.)

During this workshop, we mainly focused on making our actions big (as if people in another room had to see us present Shakespeare.)
Before the workshop, we all chose a sonnet (it couldn't be the more popular sonnets). I chose sonnet LXV (65) because I thought the rhythm of the words was calming.
After warming up and introducing ourselves, we reviewed how the iambic pentameter sounds, then read the first line of our sonnets in this way. For some, breaking down the syllables was a bit harder than others, but we all managed to say our lines smoothly.
Next, we focused on action. We chose words in the sonnet that stood out to us, then thought about actions that suited each word. When comfortable, we silently performed the actions, then added sound effects to the action.
I was used to focusing on action, rather than getting into the mind-frame, from Luke's acting advice, but yesterday was different since we had a physical "script" to act from.
Acting individual words out of context seemed a little strange to me, but when people started to present their sonnet to the group; the actions fit the meaning of the sonnet!
After the initial performance, James started to go over making movements bigger (be big because you can always pull back if needed), and adding in context. For example, Brian's sonnet was directed towards a love intrest, so James had one of the girls stand next to him, and the rest of the guys stand up, so Brian had actual people to refer to while acting. Since many people had sonnets that involved antithesis, James encouraged them to emphasize the differences in order to get the meaning across even clearer.

When I went, I was nervous, but I tried to speak clearly and with the iambic pentameter in mind (people before me had some trouble with destressing words commonly stressed. The night before I didn't have time to go over the meaning of the sonnet, so I acted blindly. It went all right, and after we discussed the meaning of the sonnet (although time erodes everything, I hope my love for you in this letter withstands time). Without meaning to, I emphasized the meaning of "rocks impregnable"by pausing before doing my action for rock (James said the pause interrupted the rhythm, showing how even the words were stopped by the strength of the metaphorical stone.)

After I went, we ran out of time, so we recapped what we went over. While recapping, I began to think about how hard acting Shakespeare is. There are many ways of approaching it, and it's easy to get caught up in your approach to acting. However, when it was my turn, almost everything went blank. I suppose in the end it's as Charlie Parker says: "Then you practice, practice, practice. And then, when you finally get up there on the bandstand, forget all that and just wail."

-15.4-

Part 2:

While staying at a family friend's house in Seattle, I watched two Shakespeare documentaries.

Henry IV/V:

I watched henry IV/V documentary in Seattle to make up for missing the airing of the actual Henry IV (pt 2), and I loved it.

The film gave great context for both plot and film techniques (the fact that Jeremy Irons narrated the film was a plus, too!). It talked about the writing behind the play, and filming behind the scenes bits of the Hollow Crown. (It amazed me to see how much background noise there was before editing.)

The film introduced some interesting creative concepts. For example, Shakespeare broke a STAC rule by having a disclaimer at the beginning of Henry V - He apologized for not being able to have many set changes, so the audience would have to use their imagination for when scenes changed to more ambitious settings!

...Conversely, Shakespeare followed a STAC rule by stealing the French Bishop's speech.

The ardour of the Shakespearian researchers and actors fascinated me. I have mixed feelings about Shakespeare, but seeing these people talk so enthusiastically about Shakespeare made me enjoy the documentary even more. I found Shakespearian acting very interesting...In a way, the actors are physical scholars - they debate the meaning of the plays academically, then put their collective interpretation on stage to the judgment of the audience. The age of the play also put into context English history with American history. The play happened hundreds of years before Shakespeare's time, and Shakespeare was hundreds of years before the Revolutionary War was even fought!

The last scene of the documentary addressed the theme of how futile war is. In Henry V, the poor fight the battles of the king, and take enormous losses; France is conquered, then in the next generation everything gained is lost. "Have we really moved on?" Mr. Irons asks, as he walks through an Arlington-like grave in France.

Although a bit off-topic from the plays, I thought this message was very powerful. It really connected Shakespeare to the world at large.

Richard II:

I went in reverse order, since Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V are a trilogy, and I slightly regret doing that, since Richard II gave even greater context to the Henry IV/V documentary.

I was fascinated before with the contrasting appearance of the three kings, especially the pure look of Richard II, and the documentary provided me with the explanation of Richard II's, which made me even more interested in this elusive character.

The documentary portrays Richard II as a king who believed he was actually from God. The director chose to have Richard behave as if he was a saint, as if he was above humanity. From the few clips I have seen from Richard II, I must say that the Mr. Whishaw pulled the character off excellently! An added bonus is that Mr. Whishaw acted in Cloud Atlas, a STAC film from last year! His character as Richard II seems to be quite a contrast with the composer character from Cloud Atlas...

I do admit, the second half of the documentary was a bit drier, but I found the introspection into the King's character most interesting. As I've said, I loved both of the documentaries, and I really must watch the Hollow Crown!

-14.4-

It's been a while, but when I went college visiting to Seattle last month, I added a lot to my library. I experienced my first overnight stay at a college, and I remembered how much I loved the climate, and the nice blend between urban and natural beauty Seattle has to offer.

I was also exposed to very interesting TED talks, and Shakespeare documentaries on the plane, and during my stay.

Part 1
TED talks:
On the ride to and from Seattle,

TED: Beyond Looks
This short talk provided an interesting look into the lives of models. The model here talked about how she thought it was so odd how girls want to have an occupation where they just need to look pretty, instead of having an occupation where they could be a "ninja cardio-thoracic surgeon poet."

TED: Fashion Lesson
This fashion designer went into the culture of fashion, and how their lax copyright laws allows for innovation and competition. I thought this was an interesting, since I'm a supporter of the protection of intellectual property. The video also goes into the positives of copying! (Something we've discussed a lot in STAC.) The most interesting part of the video was that the idea of free copying made others strive to make something so unique that no one would be able to copy it (ex. where all those crazy fashion designs come from!)

TED: Learn to read Chinese with Ease!
In this TED talk, a basic chinese lesson is taught (with radicals). I knew the concept before, but the way ShaoLan incorporates humor into an educational lesson -the part where two women characters together symbolizing the character for argument made me smirk- impressed me.

TED: Elusive Creativity
The author in this TED talk discusses a very interesting concept on genius. When she introduced the topic, she talked about how people asked her if she'd ever create another best-seller. This is how I feel about my animation (after the great piece I made in 10th grade, I haven't had any tremendous ideas, which scares me), so this talk touched me on a very personal level.
The author talks about the origins of genius. A "genius" was actually a familiar, or muse, that lived in creative people's homes and helped them with works of art. Only recently has the word "genius" been attributed towards the person themselves. The author connected this to the pressure "geniuses" face because of this re-alignment in association, and why "geniuses" often become mad and suicidal.
The concept of allowing yourself times of lethargy was very different for me, but I do agree with the author in that you still try and create work during these flatline times, until your muse decides to pitch in again.

-13.4-

Yesterday I watched the documentary These Amazing Shadows. The documentary was about the National Film Registry.

It was fascinating to see how the whole project started; One man bought all of MGM's films and started to colour them, which caused a lot of controversy. Famous stars and filmmakers protested the film in court, which led to the creation of the National Film Registry. I found it interesting how important it was to keep the original films black and white...I could see why, when they showed some clips of It's a Wonderful Life in colour; I didn't recognize what movie the clip was until the original black and white version was played!

The vague criteria and diversity of films to select impressed me. Only 25 films are selected each year, and films have to be 10 years old. Besides that, everything is free game (I remember one interviewee said the people to make up the criteria were brilliant for making the instructions so vague.) The documentary presented many types of videos that were admitted for various reasons from one of the first films to test sound, Gus Visser and his Singing Duck, to modern art films such as Koyaanisquatsi. I was especially happy that they made a special tribute to animated films admitted, since I mostly hear people looking down upon animation. The fact that the Rocky Horror Picture Show was admitted was very amusing to find out, too.

The diversity of the films also attracted many different interest groups. There was a section discussing African-American groups promoting the film The Birth of a New Nation to be admitted, to represent how the KKK affected history. Another part discussed the role of women in films...one interviewee said that almost half the silent movies were written by women! It was also very interesting to find out that abortion was discussed in an early movie, since society seemed so conservative at the time...
(Some historical films were simply awful. Not only was "Duck and Cover" admitted, but another short was admitted that was even worse! The film encouraged people to paint their houses nicely, in efforts to protect themselves from atomic bombs!)

With all of the clips from movies admitted, I also found out about new films (ex. Daughters of Dust), and reminded of movies I need to watch (ex. Bladerunner). I also was reminded how magical film is; I'm not quite familiar with the science behind film, but the thought of moving pictures just appearing on a certain type of plastic is simply astounding.
With all of the clips from movies admitted, I also found out about new films (ex. Daughters of Dust), and reminded of movies I need to watch (ex. Bladerunner).  The fact that all of the films shown were American-made is amazing. It makes me feel proud that the USA has produced a prolific amount of amazing cinematography.  The movie is a must for cinephiles!