Wednesday, February 12, 2020

The Academy Awards; Film Reviews/Criticism; The Birth of Film

Period 1:

Let's take 5 minutes this morning to respond to the 2020 Academy Awards. In the COMMENT section of this blog below, please respond to the following:
  • how many of the films that won an Academy Award this year did you personally see?
  • Of the films you saw, would you agree or disagree with the Academy's choice of winners based on the field of nominations? If you agree, why--is this film representative of the best art of 2019? If you disagree, why & which film(s) should have been nominated or won the prize?
  • What conclusions can you draw from the list about what Hollywood likes/doesn't like in the film industry? 
  • After having read the chapter on the Academy Awards (see previous homework!) do you have any questions?
Use your handout or see the link for winners: The 2020 Academy Awards (you might find it helpful to cross-reference 2019 with the awards from 2018 or 2017.) What trends are you noticing?

After our commentary, we will read some of the Joker reviews and discuss film criticism.

Around 8:00, let's move into the birth of film.

The Birth of Film

Early film was little more than the thrill of capturing "real life." Thes were little more than "moving snapshots". Through technology, photographers were able to depict reality in a way never before possible. This had many uses. For one, it allowed people to witness strange or exotic locations, cultures, or people. Now someone who lived in New York City didn't have to spend a month on a steamer boat to visit far-away-lands. Presidents could be seen without having to campaign in your home town. Life could be seen as it "really" was. These slices of life are documentaries in the strictest sense. They document history, people, reality and life. They are  "actualities"-- little more than moving snapshots. Note there is no plot or character development--just real life.

But before there could be a "birth of film", there were some important discoveries and inventions that made these early films possible. Today we'll introduce some of them.

Let's play with some early film toys and inventions.

You should be familiar with them. Please take notes and study them for our upcoming test on this material.
Magic Lantern: Invented in the 17th century by Athanasius Kircher. The magic lantern projected pictures on a screen. It functioned like an overhead projector. Originally it used a candle as the light source.

Thaumatrope: Invented by Dr. John Ayrton Paris in 1824; utilized the theory of “persistence of vision”: Persistence of vision is the optical illusion where multiple images blend into a single image in the human mind. Without it, we would not be entertained by film as it wouldn't appear to "move"--hence, no "movies".

Fantascope, Phenakistiscope (“spindle viewer”), Fanatoscope: invented by Belgian inventor Joseph Plateau. Daedalum (Horner 1834)/Zoetrope (Lincoln 1867)
Daguerreotype: Invented in 1839 by Louis-Jacques-Monde Daguerre. The process of capturing images on silvered, copper metal plates - the beginning of photography.

Celluloid: Invented in 1869 by John Wesley Hyatt. Strips of thin film which could be developed with pictures.

Praxinoscope: Invented in 1877 by Charles Emile Reynaud. A film projector. This clip shows examples of Reynaud's animations
Light Bulb: Edison invented the long-lasting light bulb and secured the patent in 1879. Actually the light bulb predates this date. Edison patented the incandescent light bulb filament (specifically). 
The Photographic Gun: Often hailed as the "inventor of cinema" Etienne-Jules Marey invented his chronophotography or series photography, similar to Muybridge's attempts, which allowed for the taking of several photographs on the same "plate" in 1882.The Films
To sum up and add some depth, take a look at Crash Course #1: Movies Are Magic. (9 min.)

Watch these early films from the late 1890's and early 1900's. As you watch, take notes in your journal/notebook about the director(s) and the titles and content of the film. Summarize in a few words or a sentence or two what each film is about. At the end of the collection, answer the following:
  • What do you notice about the films? 
  • What subject matter do they deal with? 
  • What do you notice about the shots and camera work in these films?
Edweard Muybridge (1830-1904):

Our first pioneer of the art of film is the photographer Edweard Muybridge. Muybridge was a photographer who became famous when former California Governor Leland Stanford contacted him to help settle a bet over whether all four hooves of a running horse left the ground. Muybridge began experimenting with an array of 12 cameras photographing a galloping horse in a sequence of shots. Between 1878 and 1884, Muybridge perfected his method, proving that horses do have all four hooves off the ground at some point during their running stride. Muybridge worked at the University of Pennsylvania between 1883 and 1886, producing thousands of photographs of humans and animals in motion. He published several books featuring his motion photographs and toured Europe and North America, presenting his photographic methods using a projection device he'd developed, the Zoopraxiscope.

Some other interesting bits about Muybridge: During a break from his photographic research, his wife, Flora, had an affair with Major Harry Larkyns, a drama critic. Believing that Larkyns had fathered the couple's recently born son, Muybridge tracked him down, shot, and killed him. At his trial for murder in 1875, several witnesses testified that Muybridge's personality had changed after he received a head injury in which he lost his ability to taste and smell. The jury didn't buy the insanity defense, but acquitted Muybridge on the grounds of "justifiable homicide." Muybridge died in 1904. His contributions to art and photography spurred the works of other film inventors, many of which we will study today.

Please watch the following two films, the first a documentary: Photographs of Motion
and the second, a series of Muybridge's photographs, sped up to show motion (persistence of vision!)

So what's the oldest film ever made? Interesting story:

The oldest surviving film in existence at this point is Louis Le Prince's Roundhay Garden Scene (1888). This sequence was recorded on an 1885 Eastman Kodak paper base photographic film through Le Prince's single-lens combi-camera-projector. It moved at 12 frames per second.

Le Prince's life was also interesting and there's a mystery (and some say conspiracy) attached to his death. Le Prince was never able to perform a planned public demonstration in the United States of his films because he mysteriously vanished from a train on 16 September 1890 --His body and luggage (including his film camera) were never found. Le Prince's disappearance allowed Thomas Edison to take credit for the invention of motion pictures in America, but now Le Prince has been heralded as 'The Father of Cinematography.'

Edison Kinetoscope films: (1894-1896)
Titles in this clip include: The Kiss, Serpentine Dances, Sandow the Strong Man, Comic Boxing, Cock  Fighting, The Barber Shop, Feeding the Chickens, Seminary Girls & Boxing Cats (the first cat film meme!)

Many of Edison's early films were shot by W.K.L. Dickson. Thomas Edison invented the idea of the Kinetoscope but it was Dickson who designed it between 1889-1892. His film studio was called the Black Maria. The first kinetoscope exhibition occurred in New York, NY in 1894.

Other Kinetoscope films:
At the same time, in France, the Lumiere Bros. were also working on the invention of film, particularly, a camera that could also project a film for the benefit of an audience. Learn more about The Lumiere Bros. (Documentary, 10 minutes).
HOMEWORK: None. If you missed viewing any of these linked films, please do so and take notes on the group or collection of films and their creator. Otherwise, have a nice Feb. break!

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Unsurprisingly, the only film that I watched that won an Academy Award was "Joker." I would agree that the nomination is somewhat representative of the 'best art' of 2019. The films that were nominated were all centered around contemporary issues and dealt with the storytelling of these films in a very cinematographic manner. Hollywood likes for films to have a lot of exaggeration and dramatization. They frequently go for historical dramas regarding American history that focuses on the birth or rise of something that will have an everlasting change/impact on society. Especially, documentary-esque type films that tell the story of an important figure in pop culture.

Anonymous said...

I only saw the joker I don't really watch movies
I agree because even though he killed people its a story behind it and by the end of the movie it's clear what the author was saying
I would say drama because most of the movies that win are drama

no

Anonymous said...

I saw Joker and A Marriage Story. I also saw the bet short film, Hair Love. Hair Love was a sweet short and very interesting, it deserved to get recognition. Joaquin Phoenix, however should not have gotten the award for his acting, it was not great. Joker was mediocre. Parasite, I've heard, was a fan favorite and it raises my expectations. I have no questions on the academy awards packet, I already answered my question of why they're called "the academy awards."

Anonymous said...

Out of the many winners, the only one I watched is the Joker. And I do agree that the movie deserves the award because even though it was a little exaggerated, I think the implicit meaning of the movie represented the contemporary issues of the current world and society. I don't really know, but from what we have heard from our lessons, the Oscars are a little biased to dramas and some races.

Anonymous said...

The only film I saw was the joker I do feel that somethings weren't like a hundred percent clear but I liked that because it gave us the chance to take the story in our own direction. I would agree with the film award decision because of the fact I haven't seen all of the films, therefore, I can't really speak on that or what Hollywood likes to see.

Anonymous said...

-I have seen 2 of the films that won
-As for the visual effects category, I feel Irishman/1917 should not have won Visual effects award based on other nominees.
-Holywood tends to favor dramas and satire
-No, wasn't here last class

Anonymous said...

Of the films that won an Academy Award, I've only seen Joker and Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood. Of the films that were nominated, I also seen Marriage Story and Toy Story 4. I haven't seen many of the films that won but I think for the most part the films that deserved to win an Oscar actually got one. I think there should have been possible more diversity in the nominees because there were hardly any people of color nominated in all categories, and they still have all male nominees for best director, which is annoying. Based off the winners from this year, I think the Academy Award likes very unique and shocking screenplays and actors and actresses who push the boundaries and deliver a really great performance unlike anything they've ever seen before.

Madison Sutherland said...

I saw Parasite, Joker, and Toy Story 4. I think that Parasite deserved the best picture because of how well it was done. I think the movie Joker wasn't the best movie, but Joaquin Phoenix did a good job with the role. Toy Story 4 was not the best in my opinion but compared to the other animated movies that came out this year, it was probably the best. I think that the Lighthouse was robbed of at least one award like cinematography because it was so well done. The conclusion that I can draw from this year's winners is that they are not inclusive as history shows.

Anonymous said...

I saw a few of the films. I saw Parasite, Judy, Toy Story 4, Little Women, and Rocketman. I also saw a few of the films that were nominated but didn't win. I think that Parasite definitely deserved the win. However, I was upset that Greta Gerwig didn't get nominated for Best Director. Little Women was beautiful and I thought that it should have been nominated for more. I also think that the Oscars were dominated by white men and that more people of color and women deserved nominations. I think that the Oscar's seem to nominate more dramatic and long/epic movies like the Joker. They also seem to like movies with white male rage. I also noticed that Judy and the Joker both dealt with mental health. That also seems to be something the Oscars like.

Anonymous said...

Out of all of the films that won, I only seen one of them and that was Joker. Personally, I do not watch a lot of movies so I do not know a lot about the academy awards. I did enjoy watching joker because it was interesting and the main character Arthur was a great actor and made his disability look real. I do not have any questions. I noticed that a lot of the moves that won an award are movies that are similar in genre which is action.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I have only seen two of those that won an award when the list came out. I agree that Joker should have won because it was an incredible piece of art, it was a great display of character development. I did, however, think that Harriet deserved to win an award it was a good film and a great representation of black history. The academy definitely likes to see men win and most importantly WHITE men. They're not very inclusive of women or people of color, which is why they're ratings are getting lower and lower each year.

The Murky Middle (Even More Advice)

Aristotle wrote that stories should have a beginning, middle, and end. Middles can be difficult. You might have a smashing opening to a stor...