Medium Specificity: Tools of the Trade

“We do not respect tools for themselves, but for what they get done.”- Noel Carroll

            Imagine stepping into a room and noticing that the door won’t stay open. It’s hot, so naturally you want to cool down the room by propping open said door. Unfortunately, there’s no traditional wedge to stop it from closing, but you see a hammer lying on a table nearby. You proceed to use the hammer to keep the door open, even though that is not the hammer’s original purpose. In the end, does it really matter that the tool is not being used in a traditional manner if it works to achieve the desired goal?

            Much like the hammer in the proceeding paragraph, it is commonly accepted that specific art forms do not necessarily have to always play to their strengths in order to get a particular job done. This is a point of contention, however, as some believe in the purity of specific art forms. This school of thought is known as “the doctrine of medium specificity,” and has been used by some critics to express what is good and bad art. Medium specificity holds that each respective art form is tied to its given medium, which distinguishes it from the other forms. The art form is able to convey itself in some sort of representational, expressive or formal capacity. Some of these capacities are considered “distinctive” of the art form, being as they are something that the particular medium does well and are unable to be fully realized with other mediums.

            In regards to film, the doctrine of medium specificity holds that those films that utilize the medium the best with the use of physical action (that could not be fully realized on a stage) are to be praised above features that tend to be more “dialogue-heavy” affairs, or features that could just have easily been performed as live theater. Other qualities that set film apart from other art forms are the editing and cinematography, allowing the piece to transcend its status as a mere recording. If this was the case, however, then movies such as Michael Bay’s “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” would be lauded over more subtle affairs like Chaplin’s “The Gold Rush?”

Here is the famous Dance of the Dinner Rolls from Chaplin's The Gold Rush:

Here is a scene from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen:

Most critics would agree that Chaplin’s film is an undisputed masterpiece that ranks amongst the best of all time, yet it could theoretically be done in its entirety on the stage to the same effect. In contrast, many critics gave Bay’s picture unfavorable reviews despite its cinematic quality and over-the-top action sequences that would prevent it from ever being performed (well) as live theater. The answer as to why these films defied the expectations established by the doctrine of medium specificity has to do with the film’s overall effect. Simply put, Chaplin’s “The Gold Rush” is able to communicate the narrative and produce a greater, lasting effect.  

Like the tool analogy at the beginning of the blog entry, artistic mediums should be recognized as means to an end effect, and not ends in-and-of themselves.  This is a pitfall for many directors who sacrifice substance for style and produce superficial films that feel hollow. Movies can be powerful, touching on the universal emotions that make us human.  In the end, we just have to be willing not to limit creativity.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Philosophy

           Stanley Kubrick (1928-1999) was a masterful filmmaker who never quite received the praise that he rightfully deserved. During his lifetime, Kubrick was nominated for 13 academy awards yet only managed to walk away with one*. His filmography includes such classics as 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), A Clockwork Orange (1971), The Shining (1980), and Full Metal Jacket (1987) amongst others. One of the most critically acclaimed features that Kubrick directed was Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). It was ranked on the American Film Institute’s “100 Years… 100 Movies,” a list of the 100 greatest American films of all time, at #39. The plot involves a flaw in the nuclear weapons program, which could cause a nuclear holocaust, and the attempt to avoid the crises. So what makes this movie so special and a prime example of the art of filmmaking?

            Kubrick was a notorious perfectionist who carefully edited his films and arranged each shot. In the Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick often uses facial close-ups to capture the expressive acting. Most of these cuts involve a single person in focus at a given time, so the whole movie feels fairly intimate. This is an example of the variable framing techniques of bracketing, in that we are meant to focus on the person in the frame, and scaling, which also acts to draw attention to the person.

                                                         "Ready for my Close-Up"

In order to keep the audience hooked, the film’s narrative builds suspense. The expected evil outcome of an oncoming nuclear holocaust is contrasted with the less likely hope that the code to cancel the order can be obtained in time. This is also the pervading macro-question that extends over the length of the film (according to the esoteric narrative model). Unfortunately, things do not go according to plan, and the missile is released. This is in-line with the films genre, as it is considered a dark comedy.

The film is visual eye candy under the direction of Kubrick. There are some fairly important cinematic moments, including one of the most iconic scenes in the movie. Without giving away too many spoilers towards the plot, the scene involves a cowboy riding a bomb off of a plane like a rodeo bull. This is about as cinematic as it gets, as this event causes even more bombs to go off in succession in a concluding montage. There are also images of ground combat interspersed that add to the overall effect of the film.

Kubrick has always been one of my favorite directors as I’ve always admired his attention to detail and the craft of filmmaking. This perfectionism has been often hazardous for his actors, but one cannot argue with the results. Dr. Strangelove is no exception and is one of his finest, in my opinion. The acting in the film is astounding, amplified by the camerawork and editing. I highly recommend the film: Two thumbs up.

Here is the scene with the cowboy riding the warhead:

Ducks in a Row: An Analysis of Duck Soup

       A classic in its own right, the Marx Brother’s Duck Soup (1933) has stood the test of time, acting as a satire of the political machine for over 80 years. It was ranked on the American Film Institute’s “100 Years… 100 Movies,” a list of the 100 greatest American films of all time, at #60. The movie follows the antics of Rufus T. Firefly (portrayed with great enthusiasm by Groucho Marx) as he assumes the duties of acting president of the imaginary country of Freedonia. Along the way, Firefly deals with spies and even a war as he navigates the political field. What makes the movie so special though aside from its stars’ comedic timing?

"Rufus T. Firefly: Ladies Man"

            One explanation may be its ability to fit into Victor Perkins’ theory for evaluating film. In order for a film to be considered good, it must comply with certain realist standards. It can go above and beyond the call of duty, however, through its stylization, as long as it is restrained in a realist fashion. Stylization and realism, at least according to Perkins, can coexist.

Though the film Duck Soup has several absurd moments, it rarely breaks the rules of the world it creates. The one scene that strays from realism occurs when Harpo has a tattoo of a dog suddenly come to life for a fleeting moment. This is really the only instance of the film breaking the mold, so I feel as though it still falls within the category of realism. What makes Duck Soup an even greater experience is the stylization, which adds a bit of flair. Of course, it is a Marx Brother’s film so would you expect anything less?

Here is the animate dog tattoo scene in its entirety:

Another qualification that makes the film great is the effect that it gives off. Many of the gags could have easily been reproduced on the vaudeville stage, but yet leave us laughing in the aisle all the same. There are, however, fleeting moments in the war scene at the end (such as the blowing up of a building), which could not have easily been translated theatrically.  Another visual gag involves Rooster calling for reinforcements, which cuts to a montage of different charging crowds (from motorcyclists and runners to baboons). The sheer scope of the inauguration seen, with the many extras would not have had the same sense of grandeur. All these add to the effect and create a truly memorable and magical experience.

                             

            

Drive: The Suspense is Killing Me

Having won the prize for best director and been nominated for the Palme d’Or (or top prize) at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, the movie Drive is a modern classic. The mood is tense as this movie steadily builds to a grisly head. Once the blood starts flowing, there’s no turning back as director Nicolas Winding Refn expertly builds suspense around his protagonist, simply named Driver (a contained performance by Ryan Gosling), who is a Hollywood stunt driver by day, get-away driver by night. Things are going well for Driver until he meets a woman (Carey Mulligan) and her child, developing a bond with the two. Without spoiling too much more, this bond leads to a botched pawnshop robbery with things only spiral out of control from there. What makes this movie great though?

            The film is not a “car-film” like the “Fast and the Furious” series, but rather is more akin to a suspense-thriller.  In class, we discussed how Noel Carroll lays out the formula for creating suspense in a scene. He is a cognativist, believing that proper emotions have an evaluative component. As such, Carroll believes films often pre-digest emotions for us, providing the viewer with all the proper tools to feel a certain way and directing us to a forgone conclusion. In suspense films, the viewer is led to believe that probable outcome is the evil one, while the improbable one is the good one. This creates questions such as “will the hero be able to save the damsel in distress who is tied to the tracks of an oncoming train?” which will glue the viewer to the edge of their seat and force them to become emotionally invested. How well does Refn craft suspense in the movie Drive compared to Carroll’s definition?

            The scene that came to mind when I initially approached this question was the infamous segment in the elevator. Driver has followed the woman to her apartment’s elevator where they proceed to enter after having a rather tense conversation. Upon entering another passenger on the elevator is noted to have a gun. Time slows down as Driver turns to kiss the woman in one last moment of tranquility before all hell breaks lose. You are waiting for the man to pull his gun on the two and for the movie to come to an abrupt end when Driver does something completely unexpected; he attacks the armed man (rather grisly I might add) killing him as the elevator reaches its destination. The woman exits in horror as the elevator doors slowly close, obstructing our view of her shock and ending the 

scene.

"The Calm Before the Storm"

Like Carroll’s definition states, we fully expect the evil force to triumph in the elevator. The woman and Driver have finally been able to release their suppressed feelings towards one another, and appear content. You’re waiting for the man to pull his gun and cause conflict, possibly even killing the two characters in the process. The viewer worries about the characters as the director had intended. Driver shocks us, however, when he attacks the armed man first in the most brutal of fashions. Good triumphs in the end as the woman and Driver are safe, but he has shown her the beast that sleeps inside him. The added gore only adds to the final effect.

Here is the clip in its entirety 

(WARNING: Do not view if you are squeamish):

A Film by Any Other Name….

What are the necessary conditions that compose the art of film? Are they something that can easily be defined, or are there gray areas that overlap with other art mediums? If we look at the real definition, which states that for a given thing to be x certain (necessary) conditions must be met, then the answer seems simple. In order for a film to be considered a “film,” it must a) be a detached display, b) maintain the possibility of movement, c) be a type of the token, and d) keep its status as not intrinsically a piece of art in itself.


A) Detached Display- For a film to be a detached display, it must be impossible for the audience to orient themselves according to the images projected on the screen. Though these may be real places (for example Big Ben in London, England) we cannot determine the spatial location of the landmark without a map, compass or GPS. In class we viewed the movie Vertigo. Though it takes place in Northern California, we cannot automatically orient ourselves in the direction of the Redwood Forest or San Francisco as Scottie moves from location to location.

"An Example of Detached Display in Vertigo"

B) Maintain the Possibility of Movement- A film must always keep the possibility of movement on the table, even if it is merely bluffing the viewer. As long as one is viewing the film, there is always a question as to whether it will move or not. In class we watched the film La Jetée, which was primarily composed of individual frames until a fleeting moment towards the end of the film, where a woman wakes up.

                                    "Example of Possibility of Movement at 18:01"

C) Type of the Token- When a film is a type of the token it is not THE film. This raises questions such as whether any version can be called THE film, and if this even exists in the physical sense.  The DVD of Duck Soup is not the film Duck Soup but merely an imprint or shadow of the film itself. This is a rather difficult concept to grasp as it almost treats the piece of art in the abstract.

"Is this THE Film? Example of Type of Token"

Looking at the final qualification for the real definition of film, a copy of the film (say a DVD, VHS, or film canister) is not a work of art in and of itself. For example, no one would ever think of displaying a physical copy of Night of the Demon in an art gallery (barring that it was being shown for its cover art). One simply needs to peruse the five-dollar bin at Walmart to find another copy if one’s original copy happens to break. It is not irreplaceable. At least, not until a famous artist makes it a ready made and signs his name on it (I'm looking at you Duchamp).

Variable Framing

Joseph Ruwe

Variable Framing

            Film directors use many different techniques with the camera to engage the audience. Variable framing is a method in which the camera moves or is positioned in order to ensure that the audience is paying attention to what the director intends for them to focus on. It is a great way for the director to connect the audience to aspects of the film that are important to the plot. In a play, it is up to the audience to watch the stage and catch everything that is going on. In film, the director has the power to focus and move the camera showcase what he or she thinks is important for the audience to watch for.  

            There are three types of variable framing: indexing, scaling, and bracketing. Indexing is when the camera points something out to the audience. It acts as a pointer to make sure that the audience catches  something that the director things is important to make sure that they see. This can be done by bringing the camera closer to the thing being indexed, by a cut, zoom, or by movement of the camera. The moving camera hints to the audience to look in the direction that the camera is pointing, and then they see what they need to focus on.

            Bracketing is another tool that the director can use in junction with the camera. Like indexing, this technique also draws the audience's attention to a certain subject. This is when the camera zooms towards an object or the subject moves towards the camera until it is the sole focus of the lens and everything else is bracketed out, forcing the audience to concentrate on the bracketed object. The bracketing tells the audience what is important, and not to pay too much attention to what is outside of the bracketing, because the important stuff is inside of the bracketing. Everything within that cinematic frame is what the viewers need to watch for.

            The third element of variable framing is scaling. This technique magnifies objects to signify to the audience of their importance. By making something that is small take up an exorbitantly large space on the movie screen, the object does not escape the attention of the audience and it give the object status and importance. Scaling can also be used to make objects that are unimportant to the plot smaller on the screen, and thereby give the hint to the audience that it is not really worth them paying a lot of attention to, or placing a lot of importance on.

            All three of these variable framing techniques are somewhat similar, and often go hand in hand. For example, it is common to see a camera shot employ both scaling and indexing by having a fast shift of the camera change the screen so that a small object takes up more space than it should. Or indexing and bracketing could team up to point to an object and zoom in on it until it brackets out what is unimportant on the screen. These techniques are useful for directors to use as guides for the viewers. They bring the viewer from what is important in one scene to what is important in the next, and keep the viewer mentally on track while watching the movie. 

Cinematic Narration

Joseph Ruwe

                                                Cinematic Narration

Most good films tell a story, and an important aspect to the telling of the story is narration. Even in films that do not tell stories, such as documentaries or films that make arguments, the importance of cinematic narration should not be discounted.

Erotetic narration is a type of filming that has a question and answer type of structure that wraps up the loose ends of the film when it is done. In contrast, a soap opera ideally has no end, but just a never-ending middle in which the characters are forever finding themselves in new situations and never come to a final conclusion. Erotetic narrations give the audience closure. This is a way of giving answers to questions and coming to a definite end, rather than just stopping. Film makers should be aware of how to create good closure. Sometimes films end too suddenly and audiences are left with questions about the plot that were never answered. The audience should feel, with proper closure as though the film ended at a point where they are no longer in doubt about the questions and uncertainties in the characters' lives and situations. There is also a certain set-up involved in creating closure. If the story does not have some amount of suspense and questions to be answered, then the audience will walk out halfway through it because they don't have a reason to stay. On the other hand, if the closure is poor, then the audience will leave feeling unsatisfied. An example is the film, The Lord of the Rings. At the end of it  the ring gets destroyed. That is the answer to the main question that the audience wanted to know, and so they were happy with it. They didn't really care about whether or not Frodo lived in Bag End when he got back, or decided that his taste of life outside the Shire made him want the big city life of Gondor. That was irrelevant because it is not a question that the movie prompted, so the audience didn't ask it. Which is probably why director, Peter Jackson, decided to leave out the last part of the book where Frodo ended up going across the water to live an endless life with the Elves.  Scenes in movie either answer, sustain, or pose questions. For example, beginning scenes typically answer questions about setting, character descriptions, and time frame. They also pose questions that will keep the audience interested for the rest of the film. Scenes in the middle of the movie act to sustain questions by putting off closure. For example, in Remember the Titans, with each passing game that the team won, the audience had a more intense questioning of whether or not the team would resist the pressure to break down, or if they would win the championship. The last scenes of the movie should wrap it all up. It should tell us how things end up and give the answers to all of the questions that have been posed throughout the movie.

Blog 5

Tim Baldrick

Dr. Langguth

Philosophy of Film

Citizen Kane

            When it comes to studying film and what a good film represents, it does not get any better than Citizen Kane. As we discussed in class it is considered one of the greatest films of all time. Throughout this film there are representations of all the techniques we have talked about throughout this semester of class. The producer of Citizen Kane was brilliant with the way that he put the overall film together and all the different aspects that he incorporated into it.

            The overall plot of the film is the idea that they are trying to figure out what was meant when Kane said Rosebud right before he died. The entire film is based around the idea of what the word Rosebud meant. Throughout the film the producer used many of the techniques that we have talked about. There are many different great uses of the indexing, scaling and bracketing techniques that we have talked about a great deal. There are many different times that there are specific aspects of the scene that the producer wants to focus on. He uses all three ways to focus in on different aspects for the viewers to pay attention too.

            Another technique that is used in a great way in this film is the question and answer technique. This is shown in this film from the very beginning. When Kane says the word rosebud it starts the biggest question of the movie. As soon as he said that word you knew that was the question concerning what he meant by saying that. The answer part is scene throughout the rest of the film when they are trying to figure out what it really means. In the end as an audience we find out what is meant by rosebud even though the people in the film do not figure it out.

            After viewing this film I would have to agree that this is one of the best. I loved the way that the entire movie was put together as a whole. The producer of this film was very smart in using different techniques all in the same film. The plot of the movie was very good in my mind and even though they did not find out what it meant in the end we did and that makes it a great film. Overall this was a wonderful film through and through and I feel that it will always stand as one of the greatest.