Dredd (Pete Travis, 2012)

Although this is totally not my kind of film – violence, guns, a lot of blood – I still watched all of it, mainly because I was intrigued by the camera work. Dredd, based on a comic book named 2000 AD, contains some stunning cinematography effects and visuals. The main thing which has stuck in my head is a close up of a man receiving a shot to the cheek. It’s brilliantly graphic, showing the cheek blowing outward in a spray of blood and bits of flesh. The whole film is brutal and violent, but the way it’s filmed, particularly in slow motion, means it’s difficult to look away. The scenes are all visually amazing, and while the plot isn’t actually very interesting, the film still got great reviews.

Dredd is set in a future America, a dystopia called ‘the Cursed Earth’. An addictive new drug called ‘Slo-Mo’ has been introduced, which slows the user’s perception of time to 1% of their normal perception.  The idea of the ‘Slo-Mo’ drug allows for really good slow motion scenes… The drug is best shown when Ma-Ma (a drug lord) is in the bath and has clearly taken it.

The law is enforced by the ‘Judges’, who take it upon themselves to act as judge, jury, and executioner. A girl is being trained as a new Judge (Rookie Anderson), alongside Judge Dredd, and she is seen to have psychic powers, which the Judges find incredibly useful.
When the drug lords hear that the Judges are after them, their building is closed down, trapping Judge Dredd and Anderson. Everyone is warned to stay inside their houses, and a massive fight between the drug lords and the Judges ensues.
It is all very violent, vivid and detailed, and psychic Anderson picks up on the violence – while the Judges can block it out and get on with their jobs, her extra sense doesn’t allow to forget things as easily. At the end, after she and Dredd take down the drug ring and escape, she walks off, despite having passed her initiation.

Wristcutters: A Love Story (Goran Dukić, 2006)

The film starts with Zia, the protagonist of the story, getting out of bed and tidying his messy room. He puts on a smart shirt, and it looks as though he is turning his life around as he looks in his bathroom mirror.
However, he then passes out in a pool of blood, and we see the sink full of blood and the blade he used to take his own life.
After Zia commits suicide, he finds himself a strange afterlife limbo situation. It is exactly the same as life before, just worse, which he says is ‘the perfect punishment’, in a dry voice. In this world, no one is allowed to smile. He gets a job at Kamikaze Pizza and meets his new best friend Eugene, whose whole family committed suicide, so are all in Limbo together. The new world is full of other people who have taken their own lives; when he is sat in a dark, almost empty pub on one of his first nights, a girl approaches him and asks outright ‘So how did you off yourself?’. He tells her, and then joins her and her friend, trying to guess how the other occupants of the pub killed themselves. There are flashbacks to show how each person died throughout the film; although graphic and serious, they are shown almost as comical.
When Zia finds out his ex-girlfriend Desiree (the reason for his suicide) also committed suicide a month after he did, he goes on a road trip with Eugene to find her. Along the way, they pick up hitchhiker Mikal, who is looking for the ‘people in charge’ (the PIC), because she says she is there by mistake, having accidentally overdosed.
By the end of the film, Zia has found Desiree and Mikal has found the people in charge. However, Zia has developed feelings for Mikal, and is heartbroken when she leaves. Luckily, along the way, the group made friends with an undercover member of the PIC, who can see that Zia desperately misses Mikal. He is shown taking a file out of a library, muttering about how useful it is to have friends ‘at the top’. Zia then wakes up in a hospital bed; he looks at his wrists, which are bandaged, and then sees that his parents are outside his room, talking to a doctor. He looks over to the next bed and sees Mikal, who smiles at him. He smiles back, for the first time since he killed himself.

Although the title sounds as though the film is going to be appalling, it’s actually really good. I like its brutal honesty, and the fact they don’t seem afraid to joke about suicide; given the context, it seems acceptable. I also thought the ending was incredibly cute, and while I’m not one for romance, this was a good love story. It’s surprisingly optimistic about life – some critics said it could be seen to be glamourising suicide, but I disagree with this; although it shows some really sad situations, the idea of Limbo shows that life could always be worse, and the characters within the film learn how to look on the bright side of life, even in their darkest moments. The end of the film in particular shows that suicide is never the answer.

My favourite review of this film called it a ‘suicidal Wizard of Oz’, and although I disagree, it made me laugh. Oddly, I found this dark comedy surprisingly cheerful.

Interestingly, Zia’s Russian friend, Eugene, is based on a Ukrainian man named Eugene Hütz, who is a singer and composer. Some of Hütz’s songs are featured in the film, which I thought was a nice touch.

Doctor Who – The Day of the Doctor (Steven Moffat, 2013)

23/11/13, The Day of the Doctor, has finally arrived. Happy 50th birthday Doctor Who!

I will openly admit to anyone how much I love Doctor Who, although recently I’ve felt like it’s gone slightly downhill. So as I settled down with my KFC to watch the 50th anniversary episode, I was half excited and half nervous, in a way. Steven Moffat had the chance to completely ruin Doctor Who, and if I’m honest, I was fully expecting him to.

Thankfully, he didn’t! Even though Gallifrey was never destroyed like everyone has believed for the past fifty years, Moffat didn’t change too much of the Doctor Who past, which I was worried he’d do. Instead, he changed the future, and has actually set up a good few more series just with this one storyline, should he wish to.

Although my original response was that it was a disappointing episode, I’ve thought back on it and actually it wasn’t that bad; it was more of an anticlimax, particularly with all the hype around the episode. Having said that, I loved all the special Doctor Who programmes the BBC showed in the run up to the 50th anniversary… particularly Never Mind The Buzzcocks with David Tennant as the host. David Tennant, to me, will always be the ‘real’ doctor, just as 70s children, like my parents, would say it’s undoubtedly Tom Baker. Luckily for them, Baker made an appearance at the end of the episode as a slightly quirky, mild-mannered gallery curator.

I didn’t fully understand how Zygons fit into the episode at all; it came across as almost disjointed, like two separate episodes which had been badly put together. The supposed ‘queen of England’ was played by Joanna Page, a brilliant Welsh actress… but personally I think this was a terrible choice. Why does the queen of England have such a blatant Welsh accent?
The rest of the casting, though, was great. John Hurt played a convincing doctor, and the return of Billie Piper was clever; many Doctor Who fans had been complaining about the return of Rose (me included), as it shouldn’t be possible. When I realised she was just an image for the weapon of mass destruction’s ‘conscience’, I understood. This was well played by Steven Moffat, as it created hype amongst ‘Whovians’, along with the rest of the British public. Doctor Who is such a timeless British classic – I’d be interested to find out the viewing figures.

My favourite thing about the episode was definitely the chemistry between Matt Smith and David Tennant. Their personalities melded together perfectly, and seeing them both together, the way each of them portrays the doctor, summarised my ‘Doctor Who’ childhood (and adolescence).

The Hunger Games (Gary Ross, 2012)

With the recent release of Catching Fire, the second of the ‘Hunger Games’ trilogy, I re-watched The Hunger Games before I see Catching Fire at the cinema (if my parents or boyfriend ever take the hint). Although I loved the books, the film was a complete let down.

Luckily, Catching Fire is directed by someone new, Francis Lawrence, an American director and producer. He has produced some of the most well known and memorable music videos, and has worked with brands such as Pepsi, Coca Cola and McDonald’s to produce their some of their iconic advertising commercials. I have high hopes for Francis Lawrence and Catching Fire; he has also confirmed he will be directing the final films, Mockingjay (in two parts), so I really want him to be good. The books are amazing, and have the potential to be really good films. I’ve read reviews which say it ‘comes across more like a remake than a sequel’, so I’m feeling positive.

The Hunger Games, based on the novel by Suzanne Collins, follows Katniss Everdeen. She lives in District 12, the last of twelve poor districts which are all ruled by the Capitol, after a civil war which lead to the beginning of the annual Hunger Games. To prove their power, the Capitol forces each district to offer up two ‘tributes’ to fight to the death in an arena; the final survivor is the winner, and returns to their district to be hailed and treated like royalty.
The others, however, meet a much more unfortunate fate. This year is the 74th Hunger Games, and the arena is a large forest. Katniss becomes the 74th female tribute from District 12 when her younger sister, Prim, is chosen out of a hat. Katniss is distraught, and immediately volunteers to take her place. Along with Peeta, a boy who, unbeknownst to Katniss, is in love with her, she travels to the Capitol and enters the arena. Despite her struggles and the danger, she and Peeta manage to bend the rules and both end up as victors.

The idea of the Hunger Games, although incredibly grim, is intriguing and clever, and had the potential to be a brilliant film. However, the film doesn’t do the books justice, as it is too dark, and appears rushed; the characters do not seem to develop, and personally I found it hard to empathise with them.

There are several times in the film where nothing really seems to be happening; there are long shots of trees and Katniss standing around looking scared, but there is very rarely anything actually happening. When it does, it’s hard to follow and happens too quickly.

There are also several continuity mistakes, most of which could have been easily avoided and are mainly because of bad planning and attention to detail. For example, Katniss and Effie’s hairstyles are inconsistent, clothing is in a slightly different place from shot to shot, and people move noticeably between shots. Although mistakes like this do not particularly ruin the film, there are still far more than there should be, and hopefully the next director won’t let this happen.

Donnie Darko (Richard Kelly, 2001)

Donnie Darko begins with Donnie, a schizophrenic teenage boy, being led outside by a strange figure in a bizarre rabbit costume, who introduces himself as ‘Frank’, and tells Donnie that the world is going to end in twenty eight days. When Donnie returns home, early in the morning, he finds that a jet engine has fallen and crashed into his room.
Following this first troubling vision, Donnie sees Frank more and more, yet doesn’t seem to get distressed by it. His parents get him a psychologist, and he tells her about Frank. He then goes on to flood his school, and later burns down a house, under instructions from Frank. He eventually admits to his crimes during a hypnotherapy session with his psychologist, and tells her that Frank is soon going to kill someone.
One night, Donnie and his sister throw a party at their house. Donnie suddenly realises that there are only two hours left before the prophesied ‘end of the world’, so takes Gretchen, his girlfriend, and two other friends to visit ‘Grandma Death’. She had previously given Donnie a book, The Philosophy of Time Travel, so he thinks she can help him. However, she is an old, frail woman, and as the group turn up at her house, they are attacked by their school bullies. As the fight breaks out in the street, a car swerves to avoid ‘Grandma Death’, but runs straight over Gretchen, killing her immediately.
The driver of the car turns out to be his sister’s boyfriend, named Frank, who is wearing the same horrific rabbit costume as in Donnie’s visions for his Halloween costume. Donnie shoots him with his father’s gun.
After this, the events of the previous twenty-eight days are shown in reverse order, until it reaches Donnie sat on his bed, the night the film began. The engine crashes into his room, this time killing him. The film ends with Gretchen cycling by Donnie’s house and seeing the chaos following Donnie’s death. A boy asks if she knew him, to which she replies she doesn’t. She catches Donnie’s mother’s eye and waves, as though she knows her but cannot remember where from.

I watched the beginning of Donnie Darko during summer, but we totally misjudged the time we had and I ended up only seeing half of the film. Since then, it’s been on my list of films to watch, which increases every day, and I finally got round to it yesterday. It was okay; I think it would’ve been better if I’d watched it all in one go, as the suspense was kind of lost… I felt like the ending was a bit rushed too, and a bit muddled and badly explained.

The filming for Donnie Darko took 28 days; oddly, the same amount of time as Frank allowed before the end of the world.

From Paris With Love (Pierre Morel, 2010)

The first thing I thought as the film started was: ‘Oh, John Travolta’s in this, I wonder who he is’. I quickly got drawn into the film and only as the credits rolled did I realise I hadn’t noticed him. So, naturally, I googled it…
He was the main character.
I don’t know how I managed to watch him on the screen for an hour and a half and not make this blindingly obvious connection, but wow. He has come a long way since Grease.

When the film was suggested to me, I put it off purely because of the name; it sounds like a stereotypical rom-com title, but although there were aspects of love in the film, it definitely wasn’t a rom-com.
James Reese works as a low-level operative for the CIA on the side, although he comes across as an intelligent ‘businessman type’; fluent in three languages and an avid chess player, who doesn’t seem to have ever held a gun in his life. He is assigned as a partner to Charlie Wax, a secret agent, who is a complete contrast to Reese. During the film, Reese’s shy side disappears and he gets almost comfortable with shooting people. Together, the pair infiltrate drug rings, get into seemingly endless fights, and take down a terrorist plan; the twist being that the suicide bomber is Reese’s beautiful fiancée, who has been secretly spying on him. As Wax boards his (thirty-four million dollar) private jet, he offers Reese full-time partnership. The two play a game of chess on the tarmac, despite Wax constantly teasing Reese about playing chess throughout. They both jokingly up the game by laying their handguns down, and Reese reveals that he is now carrying a Desert Eagle pistol, which clearly impresses Wax.

The way the film was left seems to lead on nicely to a sequel, and Travolta has commented he’s “not a big sequel person, but this one [he] would love”. Luc Besson, co writer and producer, also stated that he would love to see From Paris With Love turned into a franchise. However, the film received mixed reviews, some saying it was disjointed and has no specific plot. Personally, I agree; however, the acting and the filming were both good, so in a way, I didn’t mind. If I’d spent money to see it at the cinema, I would’ve felt slightly ripped off. However, having watched it on DVD borrowed from a friend, it was a decent film, which passed time and kept me entertained. It was certainly better than I expected it to be.

Thoroughly Modern Millie (George Roy Hill, 1967)

Julie Andrews, as I’m sure I’ve mentioned before, is without a doubt my favourite actress. In my mind, she is completely flawless. So this weekend, when I’ve been ill and confined to bed, I’ve watched several Julie Andrews films to make me feel better… Every film she’s been in seems to be ridiculously cheerful, so once I’d finished the obvious ones, like The Sound of Music, Mary Poppins, and the Princess Diaries, I went on Wikipedia to see what else she’d been in, and discovered Thoroughly Modern Millie.

It’s such a classic Julie Andrews film; a light-hearted musical, complete with an intermission… I love intermissions in films, I think they’re sweet. It makes me sad that we don’t seem to have them anymore.

There were even intertitles to show what Millie was thinking, like any good old-fashioned film. This one, although it is relatively new, was set in the 1920s, so it seemed to fit.

It deals with typically ‘girly’ issues, such as how to dress and which boy to choose, yet also has a sub plot about white slavery. Honestly, I found the entire thing rather bizarre.
Millie meets an incredibly naive rich girl called Miss Dorothy Brown who then checks into the same hotel Millie is living in, where the house mother, unbeknownst to Millie, is selling her tenants into white slavery.
As usual for a musical, it has a cheerful ending; Millie marries the ‘good guy’ and everyone ends up happy.
The film is almost painfully predictable, but it was a good film to watch when I didn’t feel too great. Julie Andrews’ wonderfully polite accent never fails to cheer me up.

The film started off in a way I wasn’t expecting; there were a lot of close ups, which meant it was difficult to follow what was happening. Only feet and hands were shown, no faces; this left me totally unsure as to what was going on.

Tech Talk – Camerawork (Movement)

This video explains many different types of camera movement; how they are done, and what effect they have on the audience.

Steady-cam: Steady-cam is a camera worn on a harness, which helps create smooth shots; the shots aren’t overly mobile or overly still, just ‘steady’, as the name suggests.

Dolly-shot: For a dolly-shot, the camera is on tracks, which means it moves smoothly and can be easily controlled by a computer. However, this is expensive, as it is very high-tech equipment.

Hand-held shot: A hand-held camera is literally held by the cameraman, which means it is mobile and can get into difficult places. Moving shots can feel more engaging, relatable, and realistic, and this technique is used for purposefully shaky shots, or to show a character filming, such as in Chronicle, where a lot of it seems to be shot by Andrew.

Pan: Panning is done by tilting the horizontal axis from one direction to another. This is similar to standing still and looking left and right; it is used to follow a character, but the camera stays in a fixed place, it simply turns.

Tilt: This is like a panning shot, but it moves vertically rather than horizontally, so it is looking up and down. Again, the camera itself does not move, it is just adjusted slightly to look up or down.

Dutch tilt: This is where the camera is tilted at an unstable angle. This technique can create the illusion of drunkenness, uncertainty, madness or unease.

Crane-shot: This is basically a camera on a stick; it can be lifted or lowered, and put in difficult to reach places.

Tracking shot: A tracking shot involves sideways movements often to follow something/someone who is moving. The shot stays roughly the same distance away from the subject throughout. This makes the audience feel like part of the action.

Zoom: This is where the camera literally zooms into (appears to get closer to) the subject. This is done by using the camera lens to zoom in and out of a subject so you can see less or more of the shot. It is used to show size and perspective, and to focus on a certain thing.

Crash zoom: This is the same as zooming, but much faster. It is usually used during a dramatic situation, such a fight.

Aerial shot: A shot taken from a moving plane or helicopter, looking down on a scene.

Prezi: Exploring Media

http://prezi.com/ubbk9ochjptw/my-first-prezi/

Doctor Who – Textual Analysis

Discuss the ways in which the extract constructs the representation of gender using the following: camera shots/angles/movement/composition, editing, sound design and mise en scene.

The clip shows the Master going from seeming to be the most important person in the room (and possibly in the world), to being curled up on the floor. Who makes him like this?
A woman.

To begin with, the camera is looking up at the Master, showing his power and status, and looking down on Martha on the floor, trying to make her seem subservient. Throughout the clip, this slowly changes, with the Master becoming literally and metaphorically lower, and Martha rising up as she tells her story, gaining power and control over the Master.
At the start of the clip, she is pushed into the room by two men, who are towering above her. This makes her look small and helpless as though she has been overpowered by men. Despite this, she remains consistently defiant, shown through her uncaring body language and her facial expression. When she throws her device to the Master, she throws it slightly too low, forcing him to bend and catch it, bringing him down a little, and signifying that he is not all-powerful, despite what he thinks.
Another way men are shown to be more powerful is through the roles of the other people in the room. All of the soldiers are men, which is a position of power, and two of the hostages are women, both dressed as maids, supporting a stereotypical housewife view of women.
The only other woman in the scene is a blonde woman in a red dress, stood at the Master’s side. Although she, too, is higher up than Martha, she doesn’t appear to have the same authority as the Master. She doesn’t seem very happy, and their relationship is not portrayed as a loving one, implying she is there more as a ‘trophy wife’, to look pretty for the Master. The reason she puts up with this could be to gain money, power and status, which could represent another stereotyical view of women, a ‘gold digger’.
Gender is shown using sound design mainly by the voices of those working for the Master; the voice controlling the launch is clearly a male one, once again showing a man having lots of power, whereas the weapons have female voices; these things are just doing what the Master says and seem to have no independent thought. However, it could also be argued that since they are weapons, they have power, which is a reversal of gender stereotype.
Despite these negative female stereotypes, Martha goes on to ‘defeat’ the Master, showing that women are often underestimated. The music gets louder throughout as she becomes more powerful, and the camera angles change from looking up at the Master to eventually looking down on him and up at Martha and the Doctor as the ‘heroes’.
However, arguably, no women are portrayed as particularly influential or in control, as she only defeats the Master because the Doctor told her to, using the Doctor’s idea, and because she loves the Doctor. This suggests that any time a woman does anything good, it is for or because of a man.