Auteur Theory in FIlm

Auteur Theory explains that the director is the main author of the film It is not the writer but the director. And it says that the each director has different way to make a film or he or she will put his own trademark in the film that He will do. Like what we had discuss on our film class using Harry Potter as an example even though the 9 movies has the same story and all written by Rowling the movies has different Director whcih made some of the movies different from the rest.

FEMINIST THEORY IN FILM

Early feminist criticism was focused on the issue of stereotyping mostly in Hollywood film. Because of the repeated roles of females in films such as a negative distraction on the male lead. That's why the females called for  positive image for womens in cinema. But they thought that the positive image is not just enough so the theorist studied the power of the male imagery so that they will have the way to equate the female to the male in which sexual difference is encoded.

SERBIS (SERVICE) by Briliante Mendoza

         

  Serbis is a movie which basically revolved around a porno theater  which is owned by the Pineda family the film the whole film was actually filmed in that theater.
            Gays often come there not to watch the porno films but to get service from boys who needs money by service I mean sexual service.
            The film showed what people can do in middle of poverty. Although the scenes where the camera is tracking the characters through the corridors took a lot of time it also showed the lives of people that is caged in that kind of lifestyle how they can't get away and their successors will also get the life that tey get used to.
             I really liked the color of the whole film how yellowish each frame looks and how genuine each of the characters emotions are.
           

Who killed the Philippine cinema?

                         During the 50’s Philippine cinema was travelling around the world and making a name of its own. It’s a wonder why the Philippine cinema sudden dropped. So the question is who killed the Philippine Cinema?

                              

  Pepe Diokno talked about this issue during his time on TED talk. He pointed out the percent that the government’s having in each film. And if you’ll know it is so much that some producers aren’t taking the risk of making movies.

                                And it is also somewhat the audience fault. They didn’t patronize our own films that’s why producers are afraid of taking the risks of not having any profit at all. On the other hand, it can also be the producers fault maybe the audience wants something more like Lord of the rings or Harry Potter. But the producers fail to give them what they want.

                                And in the end it is not just the film industry that is suffering also the country itself. Because in a movie it is not just the movie that they’re promoting but also the country so maybe it would be better if the government were to focus some of their attention to the Philippine Film Industry.

Film History: French Impressionism and Surrealism (1918-1930)

       World Ward I was a serious blow to the French film industry many of their film studios stopped for wartime uses. But two major firms, Pathe Freres and Leonn Gaumont still controlled their theaters. But they needed films to be shown i theaters so that's when American films became famous in France. The Hollywood cinema dominated the audience by the end of 1917.

After the war, French film making never fully recovered. In the 1920s, American movies still dominated the French market. The film industry did several things just to recapture their audience such as imitating Hollywood's production methods and genres. But what helped them was the encouragement of younger French Directors.
The young directors bought new techniques to the market. The previous generation thinks of film making as a commercial craft but they didn't.

     Between 1918-1928, The younger directors experimented with cinema in ways that posed an alternative to the dominant Hollywood formal prnciples. In Hollywood cinenma psychological cause is usual but the school gained the Impressionist because of its giving not just a casual psychological cause but with psychological depth. They manipulate time and subjectivity. Even more striking os the films insistence on registering chracters dreams, fantasies , and mental state.
During the 1920s, the Impressionist operated independently. Some of their films id became popular with the French audience. But by 1929, most foreign audience stop patronizing their films, its experimentation was attuned to elite tastes. Their films production cost were rising. As result filmmakers' companies were either bankrupt or were dominated by the major firms.
While the Impressionist filmmakers worked within the commercial market, the Surrealist filmmakers relied on private patronage and screened their work in small artist gathering. They produced films that are perplexed and confused manu audience. Because as I am to describe a surrealist film it'll be like a clips put together without any connection it is like you are watching a dream. Why a dream? because for example in a dream you'll be in your room and once you get out of the door you'll be in beach. That is how a surrealist film is. One good example is Un Chien Andalou (Short Film)

The search for extraordinary  imagery something unexplicable these became features of surrealism as it developed in the period 1924-1929.Surrealist cinema is anti-narrative, attacking causality itself. If rationality is to be fought, causal connection  must be dissolved.
An impressionist film would motivate some events as a character's dreams or hallucination, but in these films character psychology is nonexistent. French Surrealism was no longer viable after 1930.

THE CLASSIC HOLLYWOOD STYLE CINEMA

         The classic Hollywood style cinema is basically doing something so well but at the same time doesn’t make it so noticeable it’s the invisible style of storytelling. It makes the audience commit to the story by letting the audience be a part of the story by using their imagination by presenting a kind of dazzling journey that somehow resembles their own life.

            It is a way of the audience of escaping to the world that they want to be. The classic Hollywood style just like today also has different genres the audience has their own taste or preference that they want to stick with.
           It is a kind of cinema which always works with interpretation. People are so drawn that they want to stick with it.

          The classic Hollywood style is a narrative tradition it is a broad style that never overtook the story it is telling a story in a simple way with a strong story line. Like for example one famous director said that a typical love story has a problem that someone can overcome but a great love story has a problem that is non-resolvable.

         During the classic Hollywood style there is what they call the point of view shots it is showing the audience what the actual character is seeing the emotional point of view of the character that lets the audience feel what the character is supposed to feel. They were very meticulous as to how the artist looks to deliver the emotion, the drama that is being conveyed.

         One director said during the documentary was film making is like experimenting it is revitalized each generation it is a never ending experiment it never ends because if it does it means it’s finished. In our generation the tools in film making may have changed but not the style.



     

LE MEPRIS

            The film started with a scene where a camera man is filming an actor then the camera men eventually turning into the audience. Clearly it is not a usual way of starting a film. And basically you'll know that the film is actually a film within the film. It's a good way of introducing the plot of the film.

             

Then the film started with a couple complementing each other and obviously so in love with one another. The story revolved around a writer named Paul (Michel Piccoli) and his wife Camille (Brigitte Bardot). Paul was offered to do a job for an American producer Prokosch (Jack Palance) whom obviously has a thing for his wife. This was the turning point of the first scene where the couple was happy with their relationship.

Even if Paul obviously know that Prokosch has a thing for Camille. He still didn't do anything to keep Prokosh from coming to Camille and that insulted Camille and started to question his love for Paul  doesn't stand in the way of the producer’s efforts to come on to her.

          The story was honestly boring the story line is not that exciting but the way that the camera moved or the editing is really interesting especially the scene where the couple was having a conversation in their flat it's amazing how the camera moved the whole time of their argument and how the camera conveyed the message of their relationship falling part. The abrupt cutting in of clips takes the current emotion and it eve let's you think what that clips means.

                              Clearly the film is an entry of a French "New Wave" director Jean-Luc Godard. The film is worth the watch the story may bore you.It did to me but if you  look artistically the way the film was made the way the camera moved it will amaze you every scene.