In Killing Time by John Holloway and Ronald M. Gauthier, John Thompson is wrongfully convicted with the murder of Ray Luizza and an attempted carjacking. The book is based on a true story that takes place in New Orleans in 1984. From the start of the investigation, Thompson claims he’s innocent.
I myself had a hard time believing Thompson’s innocence. People came forth with tips and claiming to have seen Thompson commit the murder. They described the murder in great detail and it makes it difficult to tell whether or not they’re telling the truth.
Michael Banks and Gordon Cooney decide to try and take on Johnson’s case. They try to find errors in previous trials, but their efforts prove to be futile. They eventually find that evidence was mishandled in one of the previous cases and Johnson goes free.
The book effectively portrays the city. I found myself recognizing some of the places they described. The murder actually takes place on Baronne, a few blocks from where I work.
The Character development was weak, but the goal of the book was to tell what happened and not really to go into depth about the characters. However, I think the authors did a good job of making the reader feel sympathy for Johnson.
It seemed that the people working on the case were more interested in putting someone away rather than finding the right person to put away. The tips and evidence weren’t really investigated as well as they should’ve been. Everything seemed rushed. If the people working on the case had handled it with diligence, I don’t think Johnson would’ve ended up on death row.
Ridley Scott’s 1982 film, Blade Runner, maintains a plotline in which the “blade runners” are out to “retire” the replicants, or the genetically created humanoids of the Nexus 6 Corporation, led by Tyrell. The film places Rick Deckard in charge of the mission to retire several known replicants, or “androids” on earth, before they find a way to extend their lifespan. His job in the film is to consider the androids completely unhuman, or as W.A. Senior says in his article, “Blade Runner and Cyberpunk Visions of Humanity,” they are, “genefically engineered beings designed for special tasks and purposes deemed too difficult, demeaning, or dangerous for normal humans.” Deckard is not to have any respect for the androids—they are outcasts and not welcome on earth. As senior says, his job is to limit both their choices and their lives. The twist, however, is that Deckard has a deep concerns about the question of where humankind leaves off or begins. Senior says that, “Replicants were built to be human in almost every way, yet they are denied human status, like many of the others who cannot qualify for off-world placement, in a technologically racist society that views them as disposable slaves.” We become aware in the film that Deckard holds a slightly different opinion than his boss, Bryant, who has given him the mission to retire the androids. We find out that Bryant has a history of being racist. Deckard, while remaining on his mission and following through with several retirements, does however question how much difference there really is between the replicants and humans. This is obvious in his love affair with Rachel, a replicant who does not believe she is. As Senior describes it, “The beginning of Deckard's affair with Rachel demonstrates both her urgent passion and his own need for love and comfort…Moreover, the situations, behaviors, reactions, and needs of the replicants parallel or exceed in intensity those of the few humans in the film.” Deckard and the replicants share similar attributes- all characters with personal strengths and weaknesses. The film deals with the replicants in an interesting way—labeling them as outcasts or illegal prisoners of earth. However, a different view is offered— one that places the replicants and humans on a more equal level. This is done through Deckard’s character, and is highlighted intensely through his relationship with Rachel. The end of the film, with Rachel and Deckard leaving off together, depicts this theme even further.
Casablanca takes place during the Vichy regime in France during WW2. This was the part of France that was living peacefully under a German controlled government in southern France. The movie does a good job at keeping the political bias out of the film and does its best not to alienate its audience. Rick has been trying to stay aloof from the war, choosing not to pick a side, which represents America at this time. Every other character in the movie is somehow involved with the war. The dominant in this scene is Rick. Even though he is not in the center of the screen, everyone is looking at him, drawing the viewers eye to him as well. Also his posture shows that he is dictating something to everyone else. There is a high amount of lighting in the scene, especially on their upper bodies. By casting them in so much light shows that we are suppose to think of them as the good guys. The camera angle is social because it captures these four in conversation but leaves the rest of the cantina out of frame. Everyone in the frame is dressed in white reinforcing that we are suppose to view them as good. It is an open frame showing that they are in public and at a restaurant. Character proximity is social yet for Rick and Renault they are standing more personal to show that they are unsure about whether to join Lazlo's side.
I missed the day we discussed our favorite music so the our class missed out on the greatness of this band. They are called Down. Down's first album was released during the 1995 and put their genre of Sludge Metal on the map. Formed in New Orleans, the band is made up of various members from the area who play in other bands who get together to play in the legendary Down. The well-known main singer Phil Anselmo, and the bassist Rex Brown, were both members of the band Pantera, before it broke apart. Throughout high school I was in love with the explosiveness of death metal and the fast strumming of thrash guitars, but then I came to school in the South and a whole new world was open to me. I was introduced to Down and sludge metal. The slow yet very definitive riff, face melting guitar solos, and clear vocals quickly put this music at the top of my list. I've never been able to listen to pop music, or whats on the radio because that music simply isn't good. Anybody can take an auto-tuner and make a Kesha song. Metal on the other hand is a whole different world.
Blade Runner is a film that blurs the lines of moral relativism within humanity. In the film, we have a genetically engineered group of beings known as replicants. These replicants look and seem just like humans, but they possess superior strength and knowledge. Because of killings by a group of replicants, they eventually became banned on Earth and deemed outcasts. But who is the real outcast here? Is it the replicant, who is seemingly carrying out its life plan the only way it knows how (like a human), or is it the Tyrell Corporation that created the replicants in the first place. To me, Blade Runner is attempting to convey the evils that corporations stand for, and how worse they could eventually get. Today, corporations are slowly getting to the point of the Tyrell Corporation, which creates beings that are "more human than humans". That means that a single corporation is altering humanity, leaving them in charge. I'm pretty sure most can agree when I say I don't like the idea of a corporation altering the way we know humanity.
It's interesting to point out some folklore that has developed since the release of Blade Runner. Many companies whose logos were displayed as product placements in the film went on to experience great economic downfall. RCA, Atari, Regional Bell, Pan-Am, and Coca-Cola all had some kind of setback after the release of the film. It seems that Ridley Scott, knowingly or not, not only got his point across, but also put it into action.
Casablanca is a film that stayed neutral despite being filled with political undertones. Almost everything about the movie focused on the war and politics, but the filmmakers did an outstanding job at making sure Casablanca would not alienate or insult its audience. A lot of that has to do with the time of its release. In the early 1940s the film industry was growing, and Casablanca was merely another studio film intended to make money. Sure, it was a great one that would have a lasting legacy, but Warner Brothers wasn't trying to shape anyone's political views. Had there been political controversy in the film, it most likely wouldn't have had as much exposure. But who knows, maybe some controversy would have made Casablanca even more of a masterpiece.
In the closing scene of Casablanca, Rick and Renault disappear into a cloud of fog, which is symbolic of the political haziness of this film.
The dominant in this frame is the fog, and the subsidiary is the two men. The first thing we notice in this frame is the overall haziness. This creates a mystery as to what the future holds. The proxemics are public, as we are watching them walk off and left as bystanders in the situation that just took place. The lighting is very dim, with the exception of in front of the two men, where you can see a glow shining upon them. This shows that there could be a bright future waiting for the two men, hence the line "Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Casablanca is an ode to a romance between disgruntled bar owner Rick and his old flame Ilsa. Known for its stand out script, memorable lines (ex: “I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship”) and all star cast and crew, this film continues to make a deep impression on Americans. The film has also raised many questions about the intentions behind the plot. Many ask themselves if this story was an allegory to World War II or simply a romance captured on film. After watching this film and conducting some research of my own I have come to the conclusion that this film definitely has political commentary pertaining to America’s involvement in World War II. These are my reasons:
1) The timeline is sufficient for this claim – Casablanca originally premiered in November 1942 and was screened nationwide in January 1943. Pearl Harbor was bombed in December 1941. This gap allowed screen writers the perfect amount of time to create a complex, yet entertaining story that would display political expediency.
2) Rick was highly indifferent to the politics that surrounded him at the opening of the movie. After hearing about Victor Lazlo – who had just escaped a concentration camp – he explicitly stated his indifference. “I have no sympathy for the fox and understand the point of view of the hound too,” he said. He also stated at one point that politics was not his business, rather, it was running a saloon. His change of heart is a clear illustration of the change in opinions of Americans at the time; transitioning from disregard for the war to a Rosie The Riveter hyped society. The general consensus on the war for Americans prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor was neutrality. This transition was due in large part to America’s dependence on propaganda – such as news reels, flyers and movies – to help form their opinions.
3) Rick’s character development suggests admiration and support of the Allies. He establishes an alliance with Captain Louis Renault – once pro-Vichy turned advocate of free France – who openly shows his allegiance when covering for him at the air field. Together, their friendship symbolizes anti-Nazi views.
4) In allowing Ilsa to leave, Rick symbolically commits to the fight against Nazis, Fascism and all other representations of the Axis powers, casting love aside for the “greater good.”
Like many allegories of its day, Casablanca is a film that cleverly disguised its political commentary. It not only gained critical acclaim, but like a snake in the grass managed to impress certain values upon its viewers.
Minority Report is a great film. It is a political film and a futuristic film. Political film because it shows how people who are given authority will do anything to keep that power. It is a futuristic film because of the technology that has been created. Humans in Minority Report have become dependent on technology. Retinal scanners were advanced and any scanner in any place could identify you. Crime prevention techniques have improved in the 2054 future we see in Minority Report. Those techniques violate the rights of the three pre-cogs the Pre-Crime Department uses. Anything that could be used a tool for profit or could be used, as a weapon will be misused in human hands. Sometimes human have to realize that power should be used only for the good and only when it does the least harm.
People who were imprisoned due to the pre-cogs premonitions were released on pardons due to the discovered flaw in the system. It speaks to our society because the flaws we have will make us free. Our nation was born out of the flaws, the need to be different from the country of England, and those flaws are the reason we exist in democracy today. The prisoners were locked up not due to the fact they committed murder but to the fact there were going to commit. In our present, we do not have that ability to lock people up on presumed evidence. Our law enforcements only arrest people on definite evidence. The criminals were handled by having halos placed on their heads that would incapacitate them. The criminals were not given a trial and automatically found guilty. Now that I think about it, I do love the right to a fair trial even though our system is somewhat corrupt as well. Hollywood and the Rhetoric Panic article says, "Spielberg's film ends with the destruction of the Pre-Crime and the absolution of those punished for crimes that, in reality, they had never committed." "In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" says the blind drug dealer from Minority Report.
Prior to the release of the 1942 film, Casablanca, producers envisioned reasonable success but soon found out they'd created one of the most popular films of all-time. Its success is often attributed to its wide appeal as it truly captured the zeitgeist of Americans in the late 30s-early 40s. The suspense of the unraveling love triangle grabs most viewers attention and keeps them interested, but there is undoubtedly a political allegory behind the film that truly impressed upon the viewer, particularly due to the timing of the film's release. The film is set in December 1941, the month of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The zeitgeist of the 1930s was one of political neutrality and anti-war sentiments; however, this attack immediately changed opinions and soon changed actions across the nation.
In many ways the protagonist of the film, Rick, represents the average American man that most viewers could easily relate to themselves (or members of their family). He initially represents the average man before America's entrance into the war - a drinker who resents a past relationship, holds apathetic views on the war and American politics, and is narrowly focused on doing things in his own interest - without any plans to change his ways. His character begins to develop when his former lover, Ilsa, enters into his nightclub with her husband, Lazlo. Rick and Ilsa rekindle their love for each other and show promising signs of being together again. During this same time, Rick begins to change his attitude toward the war. The closing scene shows him deciding to join the fight against Nazism in a highly patriotic fashion. This is representative of the average man after the attack on Pearl Harbor - a man with a newfound (or revived) urge of patriotism and feeling of due diligence to his country - compelling him to join the war.
The dominant this frame is arguably Rick due to the compelling contrast in lighting; however, viewers may be drawn to Lazlo and Ilsa simply because they are moving and Rick is stationary. Lazlo and Ilsa are wearing dark clothing and are surrounded by monotonous gray fog while Rick has a small beam of light to the right of his head/back, and the part of his face that is visible is lighter than the fog and much lighter than his hat. The camera proxemic range from Rick is personal and the range from Lazlo and Ilsa is social but becoming public. The camera angle is neutral. This shot has little density since the monotonous gray fog takes up the majority of the space and has a stark texture. The form is open in the sense that there is minimal density and visual effects. The framing is tight in regards to the context because Rick has already made his decision and Lazlo is now firmly holding onto Ilsa with only one way out. At the beginning of this cut, the character proxemic range is situated at a personal distance, but Lazlo and Ilsa gradually move to a public distance, implying a detachment from Rick.
Casablanca, the Hollywood film directed by Michael Curtis and released in 1942 during World War II had a great impact on the audience of the time. The Political expediency theory, in this case, is shown by how Curtis delivered the film in a way not to alienate the audience. Instead of choosing sides, he uses his characters, primarily Rick, to represent what is going on at the time. By placing Rick in this position, the audience is then able to either sympathize or empathize with the war. Rick is often understood to represent America. His lack of involvement, or neutrality, in the film represents America's lack of willingness to get invovled in the war at first. As the film goes on, however, Rick becomes more involved and begins to see the Germans as bad. Much like America, who eventually became involved with the war as well. In order to keep the attention of his audience, Curtis tied in a romantic twist. It was this romance, between Rick and Ilsa, that represented a deeper political meaning in the film. It also kept the attention of a wider audience. In this scene posted, when Rick tells her, "Here's looking at you kid," Rick is sending Ilsa and Laszlo on a plane to Lisbon in order to keep her safe. He is doing this because at this point he has become involved, and he knows it is not a safe place for her.
In this scene, Rick is the dominant as he takes up most of the frame and Ilsa is only taking up the bottom corner and facing backwards.
The angle of the camera is slightly upwards, looking from Ilsa's level up to Rick's, signifying his dominance again.
The lighting key here is low, as a way to suggest a sad time (as it is sad for Ilsa to leave him) and to suggest the effects of the war.
The camera proximics are personal here and the character proxemics seem intimate
In Casablanca, our protagonist (Rick) attempts to take no stance on the developing war, preferring instead to stay neutral for what he claims are business purposes. Makes sense. If he were to take a side, people of the opposite faction might stop going to his bar.
As an American living in Casablanca, he adopts his home country's attitude toward the war. This seems like an odd trait for an expatriate. Normally those who expatriate in war times do so because they believe their country shouldn't be involved in a war that it is involved in or the other way around. Either way, the individual disagrees with his government, so he finds a place that is governed more to his liking. In Casablanca, Rick's atitude towards the war is hardly distinguishable from the U.S.'s.
In the shot pictured above, we've flashed back to Rick's and Ilsa's affair in Paris. This flashback explains what, if not politics and war, is at the forefront of Rick's mind: Ilsa.
Dominant: The dominant is the front of Humphrey Bogart's face Lighting Key: The lighting is pretty low, but almost evenly balanced. What I mean by that is there are even amounts of bright areas and dark areas in this shot. Balanced, like Rick's politics. Camera Proxemics: Intimate Angle: Straight on Density: Pretty dense, there is hardly empty space in the shot. The screen is almost entirely taken up by Bogart and Bergman's faces. Form: Closed Framing: Tight Character Placement: Bergman takes up the right of the screen, Bogart the left, and if we consider the pair a single object, we could say they are placed in the center. Character Proxemics: Intimate. They are clearly about to exchange a kiss.
Because I was not present when my fellow classmates presented on their favorite artists/bands, I am blogging about the increasingly disappointing music industry and how the Internet has made superstars out of dim witted lyricists with repetitive beats.
When I go onto iTunes to see what the music world has to offer me, I am immediately shown the Top 10 singles that the world deems worthy of my ears. Names such as Drake, Trey Songz, Bruno Mars, and Ke$ha litter the list and have become the norm in our ever conforming modern music scene. With lyrics regarding drinking, drugs, sex and an overall message of “who cares, lets party,” its hard to not be upset and wish I was living in a different era, where music took on new meaning. It’s possible I might feel differently when the next music craze comes around, but not likely. The general target audience for music these days, in my opinion, is teenagers, mostly college age, who go out partying and dancing. These songs are played on a cycle at college bars and clubs around the country, with virtually no differences in creativity or message. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty, I repeat, PLENTY, of worth while music in this world that could be considered "mainstream". Unfortunately, I cannot blame the music industry fully, because we, as consumers, are who ultimately control the music industry. Because my fellow peers choose to buy such unoriginal songs, their popularity skyrockets, and therefore so does the number of artists who try to replicate. I know that I am generalizing all music, and I am also aware that these ‘Top songs’ in actuality make up a small portion of bands and artists out there in the world (I have a musical library of 6,000 to prove it), but then why aren’t those other bands making it to the top charts or the radio? More importantly in my mind, is this what our generation will be known for musically?
It is interesting to note that little is heard of these Top 20 artists’ albums as a whole entity. In our day and age, the availability of the ‘single’ allows for everyone to completely overlook the rest of the album, purchase the single, and make people like Ke$ha ridiculously ‘successful’. The value of an entire album is deceased. True, there are still many still alive who remember the days of records, videocassettes and compact disc players, but sooner than we think, there will be a day when kids will be experiencing music solely through applications such as iTunes. I believe that my generation will be the last that remembers the days when technology didn’t rule their lives completely. When playing outside as a kid was better than sitting around chatting and playing video games, and when it was exciting to go to a store a purchase a new CD by your favorite artist. I can see it already happening in my younger siblings, who virtually breathe technology. Not by their own fault, but because that is what our world is becoming.
On the opposite end of the success meter, if a band or artist wont conform, they need extreme creativity and originality to make it big. Die Antwoord, a rapping couple from South Africa, is a perfect example. Take a look at their music video. I can barley understand what they're saying due to their accents, and yes, they are bizarre, but these are traits that have made given them much success in the music scene as of late.
Casablanca is set in the same month that Peal Harbor was bombed. It’s almost impossible to not see Casablanca as a political film. Rick, the indifferent bar owner, represents America. He didn’t see any need in getting caught up in all the drama that was going on in Casablanca. He isolated himself and didn’t take anyone’s side in the beginning, much like America before Pearl Harbor.
Rick is fair; he doesn’t take sides and he treats everyone the same. When the banker comes into the bar and expects special treatment, Rick turns him away and treats him like he would treat anyone else. Rick thinks the best way to stay out of trouble is to stay out of all the politics going on at Casablanca and to not take anyone’s side. In the end, Rick shoots the senior German military officer and finally takes a side.
In the beginning of the film, Rick sits and chats with a few german militants. One of the officers asks Rick questions, attempting to get a feel for his political stance and why he decided to leave Paris. “Rick is completely neutral about everything,” states one of the Germans.
Dominant: The dominant in this scene is the men sitting at the table. Occasionaly Rick and the officer are the dominats in the frame.
Lighting Key: The lighting in the scene is very bright and open. The lighting reflects Rick’s attitude towards politics.
Camera Proxemics: The shot is pretty close. The men at the table fill up the frame.
Angle: The angle is straight on.
Density: In the beginning, the scene is very detailed and we see everyone in Casablanca. Later, the table is where the eye goes to first.
Form: The form is close in this scene.
Framing: The Frame is tight.
Character Placement: The characters are located in the center of the shot.
Character Proxemics: The characters proxemics are intimate since they’re sitting at a round table sharing a serious conversation.
Casablanca was not originally intended to be anything inspirational or spectacular. The following the film gained was not built into the movie beforehand. I really like this quality and think it brings a whole new level to watching it. The film, however, is interpreted in many different ways and is really deeply analyzed by some to have far deeper meanings than originally intended. Umberto Eco explains that the film deals with the idea of sacrifice and it's connections to war. This idea of sacrifice is seen as romantic which expands the original intention of the film, which was to be a simple romance set in Casablanca fueled by the recent Allied invasion of North Africa. Howard Koch, one of the screenwriters of the film, considers the film a sort of political allegory, comparing Rick to president FDR. FDR and Rick both initially rejected the war (FDR waiting till Pearl Harbor and Rick initially claiming his neutrality in the conflict.) Overall, I really think the film was overanalyzed and held to be something far higher than it was originally intended. I'm all for artistic interpretations of film, but I feel that early films were too superficial to be analyzed at that deep of a level.
We decided to make a video about a staring contest. Then we decided we'd do it kung fu style.
We had some issues with the video file format. We recorded it on Matt's phone, and the extension was .mp4, and for some reason his computer thought it needed to be read by this freeware program that put a watermark on it, and it was really annoying. But we got it to work. We're pretty proud of this, we've been cracking up laughing throughout the whole process.
This short is a modern take on my favorite episode of the Twilight Zone, "Time Enough at Last." In the original, the main character (Burgess Meredith) wants to read constantly but is inhibited by everyone else in his daily life. He takes his lunch (reading) break in the safe at the bank he works at when he sees in the daily newspaper that there is a possibility of an H-bomb. He gets back to his reading and then hears the bomb. When he emerges from the safe, he finds that he is the last living man on earth. He is ecstatic about this discovery because now he can read all day and no one can bother him. Only, as he walks down the steps of the library with his arms full of books, his glasses fall and break. He is left with no human interaction and no way to read.
We did our version with a Kindle. Tragedy ensues when the electricity goes out around the world... leaving no way to charge the "book."
This movie was our take on a thriller/suspense movie with a funny twist at the end. The majority of the film was shot in Audubon Park and Loyola's campus. Azreen does an amazing job is being a total creep in this one minute film. We also wanted to make fun of how Dominic was so freaked out by such a tiny person. In all, the project was enjoyable and we had a lot of fun. It was amazing to us how we were able to successfully shoot this movie in less than forty minutes and edit it in such a short span of time. Hopefully everyone will enjoy it (especially Professor McCay :]]).
This film is a one minute montage of CC's coffee on Loyola campus. Filmed by Ms. Barkley and edited by Mr. Fisher. We very much enjoyed the creative process of choosing a topic for our film and actually filmed a few movies. However, it turned out that the most simple film fit. The editing process was fun and we will use iMovie much more in the future.
I am writing this blog for the sole purpose of making up points that I did not receive because I was not in attendence for class on the day that the other classmates gave presentations about music/their ipods/itunes/pandora etc..
There is a man. A man who is at once extremely creative and also extremely dim-witted. A man who has been called a "jackass" by our nobel peace prize winning president Barrack Obama. One who stood next to Mike Myers and stated former President George W. Bush (godbless him)"doesn't care about black people". And a man who, in his most wacky move yet, stormed the stage of the MTV video music awards and stole the microphone away from a tearful 19 year old country/pop singer - furthermore telling her she did not deserve the award... This man, Chicago's own Kanye West, has recently used an unconventional version of the internet/music relationship in order to promote his most recent, second-best album, "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy".
This fall Kanye West has been releasing one song available to download, free of charge, through his website each and every friday. These single downloads are leading up to the full-release of "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" on November 22, 2010.
By "giving" to his fans, Kanye is rebuilding an image of respect to offer to the mainstream audience(like the people who believe that W. actually does care about black people [see New Orleans, LA. August 2005]. These same people being the ones who watch/take stock in the MTV awards and say things like "you know I have to admit I really do like Taylor Swift...")whom he needs support from. (BTW I like Taylor Swift's hair)
It's hard to tell whether the friday releases, which he called the GOOD friday series, will have any noticeable effect on the profit margin for this latest album. But in our modern internet age profit margin on a single album is not the point. Kanye West is an image, a label, a self-titled renaissance man. His real profits come from this image, not from single album sales or itunes downloads. What is truly essential for Kanye is the self-perpetuation of this image. He has to stay on the public radar. His popularity with the masses is what keeps him and his people rich. The GOOD friday series was just another way of hyping himself (not to say that the latest album itself was overhyped because it's a great album). Like his past controversies, which could be argued are all 100% pre-meditated, the GOOD friday series was just meant to keep people talking, blogging, and googleing all things "Kanye West".
This is our one minute film project. I had a ton of fun working with these fellows. We all put in the little time we had and made a funny joke come to life. If I could have done anything different I would have added voices to the ants he was killing and made some crazy sound effects with each splatted ant. I would have made the closing credit a lot more slower so people can get the joke. Over all both the Chris made this film hiliarious. They were gun-ho and we made it a success. I can't say I'm the best cinematographer but I think I did a great job shooting the film on my camera phone and editing it. Hope you enjoy class and Professor McCay. This film has been Rated R due to Violence and Language!
Andrew, while strolling through the beautiful Loyola New Orleans campus, stumbles upon a mysterious furry creature. The two develop an intimate relationship based on their shared joy of being awesome.
You will work with your partner to make and edit a one-minute film. You must post that film before 4:00 P.M on Tuesday, November 23. Since classes do not end until then, you should have plenty of time to meet with your partner, work on the film and post it to the blog. 1. Remember to put the Last names of all participants on the film in the title, and the full names of all participants in the label. 2. Remember to get waivers from anybody in the film who is not in the class. The waiver should say " I (name of person) give permission for my part in the film to be posted on the Introduction to Film and Digital Media Blog. I understand that this is a public blog, and I do not hold Loyola or the makers of this film responsible for any responses to this blog." Date and have the person sign the waiver and give it to me on Monday, November 22. I will be in until noon. 3. Make sure your film is sized properly. 4. Make sure sound is working. 5. Comment on the film: you successes and failures, some comments on what you learned, etc.All participants should comment and give their name after their comment.
Casablanca, the 1942 classic directed by Michael Curtiz, has endured the tests of time and has emerged as one of the most celebrated movies of all time. Casablanca is not only a phenomenally well-done film, but it also carries with it a poignant message, which was delivered when it came to the silver screen. In order to fully understand the impact that Casablanca had on society when it was released, one must understand the social context of the day. In late 1941, the United States entered World War II, which is also the setting of the film. There is an interesting parallel that exists between Rick’s actions (before he took any active role in the fight against the Nazis) and the actions of the United States (before entering the war). In the wake of World War I, the United States adopted policies of isolationism and non-intervention. In fact, the United States Congress passed the Neutrality Acts in the late-1930’s to try and prevent the United States from getting involved in the war that was raging in Europe. Rick has the same attitude as the United States regarding involvement in the war. Rick says, “I don’t stick my neck out for anybody” at several points in the movie. However, just like the United States, Rick eventually enters the fight against the Nazi’s. Casablanca’s message was an important one at the time because the movie was released just a few weeks after the Allied Invasion of North Africa.
In the final scene of Casablanca, Rick has a standoff with Major Strasser. During this scene, Major Strasser arrives and attempts to phone the radio tower to prevent the plane carrying Victor Laslo from taking off. The shot is very intense and an analysis of the mise en scene will help to reveal the techniques used to achieve this tense confrontation. The camera proxemics in the shots of Rick and Major Stasser, the shots that switch back and forth between the two characters, are personal. The overhead lighting in the scene creates shadows created by Rick’s hat on his eyes. These shadows veil his eyes and create a nice effect. As the shot rotates from Rick to Strasser, so does the dominant, but in the end, Rick is the dominant in the shot that is taken from over Strasser’s shoulder when he is shot.
In Minority Report all murder has stopped because of the Pre Cog’s ability to predict a murder before it happens. A major underlying theme in the film is the idea of freedom. If someone can be arrested for a crime they have not yet committed then the idea of free choice is an illusion because no matter what a person’s current intentions are, if the Pre Cogs determine that that person will commit a murder in the future, they are labeled as a criminal by society. Terri Murray’s “Our Post-Moral Future” tackles the same issues as Minority Report but in a real world setting. Murray’s article talks about how new brain scanning technologies are able to predict a person’s intentions. The implication of this new technology is that society will soon be able to predict if a person will be a criminal. It also implies that there is a genetic predisposition to criminal behavior in some people. The technology in Minority Report is strikingly similar to the technology described in Murray’s article. However, the difference between Minority Report and reality is how the “criminals” are treated. In Minority Report the people who are arrested are treated as if they did commit a murder, they are labeled as a criminal and punished. Murray suggests that the technology described in her article will do the same thing; if someone has a genetic predisposition to crime then that person will be labeled as a criminal thereby taking choice away from that person. Here is where I disagree with Murray, if society were able to predict if a person was going to be a criminal, I feel that the society would treat them as a person with a disease or disorder. To suggest that that would be taking away a choice would be like saying that diagnosing someone with depression is taking away his or her choice to be happy. But of course it does not, it just means that the person with depression has to be counseled or medicated to live a happy life. It is the same with crime, if it can be scientifically determined that a person has a predisposition towards criminal behavior then they should be treated like anyone else who has a genetic or psychological problem.
My personal avatar is a camera. This is not because I particularly enjoy photography; I mean I've taken a picture before, and I can appreciated a skillfully captured moment, but I'm all but ignorant to the greater world of photography.
I chose a camera because it is a tool through which people observe. And I consider my tendency to observe one of my most dominating character traits. When I meet new people, I need to observe them before I fully interact with them. So I sort of stand behind a camera and watch, picking up on what they think is funny, what their taste in entertainment is, how they feel about themselves. Only then do I become engaged in a conversation or interaction.
In Minority Report, director Stephen Spielberg uses cinema to bring the visions of short story author Phillip K. Dick to life. First published in 1956, Dick’s intense and what are considered by many to be somewhat paranoid scenes – which in my personal opinion, were heavily influenced by the era they were written in (ie: Cold War, Russian enemies, American hysteria) – question whether or not human beings are predisposed to commit crimes or if they have the free will to change their outcomes.
Spielberg expands on Dick’s writings to create a world where human beings are predisposed to fearing their government. Their arrests are caused by actions that have been foreseen by government “forces” – most of the population remaining in the dark about the existence of Pre-Cogs – and, as such, create the ideology that the government knows all. I first saw this film at its original release (December 2002) and understood the basic concepts, but did not harbor the knowledge I do now to contrast the differences between the imaginary world of Phillip K. Dick and the world we live in. Today, I have to ask myself whether or not he was on to something.
To be honest, I think Spielberg created a world that is not too far off from reality – both his and Dick’s. In Lester D. Friedman’s article Minority Report: A Dystopic Vision, he explains the accidental yet perfect timing of the film’s release. While written before the September 11th terrorist attacks, Minority Report was released at a time where Americans constantly questioned the extent of their safety, security and their personal information. He also explores the importance of maintaining essential human freedoms so they are not exchanged for so-called “governmental assurances.”
In his article Friedman says, “…Can we trust the FBI and the CIA to exercise appropriate restraints, to monitor only those who endanger our safety and not those who hold unpopular opinions, if given greater power to patrol our lives? Will President Bush's and Tom Ridge's Department of Homeland Security prevent violent activities or routinely engage in unjustified surveillance of our personal lives? Does the former justify the latter? It is also a time when, while ethicists debate the ramifications of the latest scientific findings about genetic predispositions, prisons throughout the United States contain people arrested because the government suspects they would have committed future crimes.”
In short, we currently live in a world where the slightest suspicions that would, under normal circumstances, would remain just so, contain enough “evidence” to lead to conviction and life-altering damages. We have also lived through a state of panic similar to the environment Americans were subdued to during the Cold War (unless you find S.W.A.T. teams searching mailboxes for anthrax any different than the duck-and-cover drills elementary schools students memorized, the idea being ensuring safety and knowing what you can do to deter oneself from danger) . The combination of Dick’s fears and Spielberg’s vision provides illusions to the fact that the media and the government are long time acquaintances. I find it ironic and chilling that the media follows a timeline where current events can coincide with our entertainment with such ease.
Steven Spielberg's Minority Report revolves around the question of whether humans have a conscious control over their actions. Speilberg asks the audience whether such a thing as "free will" exists. Furthermore he asks whether an individuals concept of the "OTHER" is what motivates their actions. The idea of the "other" that I want to describe is the idea that human beings are forced to make decisions, consciously and subconsciously, according to how they feel they are going to be perceived by a separate entity.
In Minority Report the "other" is displayed in many different ways. One could argue that in the film the "other" is represented by the government and specifically the pre-crime detectives. In the film the government is at once distant and also always surrounding the citizens. Most importantly the presence of the government is always felt. The way the government is always around but is actually seen very little is an interesting idea. Interesting in that it is still able to hold so much power yet may actually consist of very few individuals. A good example of the kind of powerful effect the "other" can have can be seen in a specific kind of prison design.
The Panopticon, to briefly summarize it, is a prison layout designed by the english philosopher Jeremy Bentham. It consists of a circular, colliseum like layout of cells. All the cells face into the middle of the circle. In the middle of the circle stands a vertical tower. The tower has windows on all sides and at all levels, so the prisoner is theoretically never out of site. Furthermore the lights never go completely out in the Panopticon. The guards are never seen inside the tower, the windows cannot be seen in from the outside. Bentham's design, he argued, would need very few guards - or maybe (eventually?) none. It's design is successful because of the psychological power of the perceived other.
This is similar to Minority Report where the most frightening aspect of the pre-crime team is not their sheer maliciousness but in there ability to know everything you could possibly due.
In Adam Savage’s article on “Blade Runner,” his favorite film, he dissects the film’s technology and mise en scene to show the timeless merit of the movie. He maintains that despite more advanced and sophisticated sci-fi films like “Matrix” and “Star Wars” that came after, “Blade Runner surpasses anything that’s been done since.” Movies in this genre rely heavily on special effects and CGI for their mass appeal, so how can “Blade Runner” still shine as a movie superior to its more technologically advanced descendants?
Ridley Scott was resourceful with the technology available to him, like model mastery and motion control, using it to create a world in which the viewer feels very much apart and grounded. These techniques might not seem appealing to filmmakers today but the older methods cannot be forgotten in favor of newer devices. All of the technology in “Blade Runner” serves the greater purpose of the story, and the narrative, the most central device in any movie. The very story itself cannot be obscured or neglected to special affects, which this film avoids. “Blade Runner” is timeless and successful because the character arch of Rick Deckard is complete and the themes followed through. The technology that creates the dystopian megalopolis of the future allows the viewer to inhabit the setting intimately, but our focus remains on the profound conflict of what is human and who has the power to give and take away life. Sci-fi films of today would do well to remember “Blade Runner” and mimic its ability to dazzle with CGI and the like while also being able to communicate a story that resonates in the real world.
Minority Report offers several topics for moral debate in the realm of crime and justice. Primarily, of course, is the question of the legitimacy of a precog's prediction of a crime as compared to the predicted criminal's realized line of action.
These predictions alienate the supposed perpetrators as murderous monsters. The "justice" perpetrators receive actually removes their ability to provide legal defenses for themselves. What the precogs offer the police can be thought of as conditional surveillance—looking into their visions is similar to watching footage from a security camera, but it's a security camera in the future that might be at a different angle than you think, or that won't capture the whole story, or that is capturing something that ends up not occurring.
The precogs' predictions (accusations) are like a futuristic version of red-light and speed cameras that record when we break automobile laws. In both scenarios, the accused is found guilty only through surveillance, which is not sufficient enough evidence to convict someone of wrong-doing. There is an added level of injustice in the Minority Report scenario, though: the surveilled event may be a complete fabrication that is not the least bit actualized.
This brings me to Terri Murray's "Our Post-Moral Future?" which describes new technology capable of "reading" brains to determine if a person is likely to commit a crime. Hello, science fiction in the real world. She also brings up how our society likes to think of criminals as "ill" people who can be cured of an inherent inclination to commit crime. Absolute tomfoolery, if you ask me. Most people have felt hatred for another person before, and some of us have thought about how nice it would be to kill a person we hate; but hardly anybody decides to go the immoral route. Most of us take the time to think rationally and make the decision that we are not going to murder our high school disciplinarians, our exes, our in-laws, or our roommates.
Murderers have that option to, the option to not commit murder. Even if a man has his hand on a trigger and is ready to fire at his boss, he can still decide to not shoot. Hell, even if he does shoot and immediately comes to his senses, he can call for help or try to give first aid assistance. That would save his boss's life and get him stuck with a charge of simply attempted murder. The point is that he has options.
In Minority Report the supposed criminals have no options. The whole concept of freedom is neglected, and the society fully embraces a type of mechanistic world view, that everything that will happen directly results from everything that is happening, and the future cannot be changed. Free will then doesn't exist, and morality becomes an illusion.
The “other” in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner is the Nexus 6. These ‘replicants’ were built by the head of the Tyrell Corporation for several different reasons, but primarily to work on ‘off world’ planets and essentially be slaves. Each model has a different specialty: Roy has optimum self-sufficiency and incredible strength, Pris was noted as a basic pleasure model and had great acrobatic skills, and Zhora was termed the Beauty and the Beast. Because it was believed that after a certain amount of time that the replicants might acquire human emotions (and therefore pose a threat to their usefulness and willingness to comply to their said actions) the Nexus 6 were given a bult in 4 year life span.They came back to Earth to get the brains behind the Tyrell Corporation to lengthen their life spans. When Roy has Sebastian take him to meet Tyrell he is treated with a minimum amount of respect, almost child-like. I find it interesting that Roy simply took what Tyrell said for the end al be all so quickly, it seems like a normal person might continue trying to find a way to stay alive. Tyrell does seem to treat him like a child though and that could be seen as Tyrell looking down on him and disrespecting his emotions as invalid, or it could be seen as a father figure reaction because Tyrell was his maker.
I cannot help but wonder what point the police force saw in having Deckard hunt and kill the replicants if they knew that their expiration dates were so close on the horizon. Roy died of “natural” causes while he and Deckard were fighting it out. I believe it is important to note that at the end of the film the viewer discovers that Deckard is a replicant as well. Because of this, I find it incredibly cruel that he was asked to kill other replicants, Or, was he built specifically for that very reason? Deckard’s internal journey throughout the course of the film makes the viewer quiestion what being human really is. In the final scene when we find that he is a replicant all the lines between human and non-human are blurred. The love that he and Rachael felt towards each other shows us how strong the replicant’s feelings can be. We had been following his emotions the whole time thinking that he was a human. In Senior’s article, Blade Runner and Cyberpunk Visions of Humanity, he notes, “… all the boundaries are blurred between master and slave, hunter and the hunted, hero and villain, the animate and the inanimate, the human and the nonhuman…” This ambiguity becomes a major problem for the maker, who would have wanted a very clear line between replicant and human. But in the end, if you allow something the ability to have emotions, it becomes human as well.
As human beings we have ingrained in use the unfortunate necessity to put ourselves into groups. From socioeconomic classes to racial separations to grouping based on interests, sex, beliefs, nationality the list is infinite- we tend to place upon ourselves, whether willingly or not, certain distinctions as to separate ourselves from others, but why? Why is it that man is so driven to have an "us" and a "them"? Why is it that human nature drives us to make these distinctions, as if compelled to do so in the belief that somehow this separation must be made and in doing so we are somehow making ourselves better. As Antonio Sanchez-Escalonilla points out we place people into groups as a sort of defense mechanism. By labeling we make them less threatening because we know what they are, what to call them; to "root out those individuals who are a danger to our way of life," (pg 12). The idea being that with these distinctions we have the ability to label ourselves better than those outside of certain groups. This idea of the others or the outsiders is prevalent in the film Minority Report. It is interesting to note just how quickly one can become another. In then out, with no warning or explanation. For Tom Cruise it was a simple thought, an innermost private thought that purged him from the "us" and sent him to the "them." Within Minority Report there are strict constraints placed society, certain groups that are adhered to. There are the cops, the precogs, the criminals, and the innocent everyday citizens- to name a few. But even within the police force there are separations. For example John Anderton, the main character played by Cruise, is acting chief of the Precrime unit a force the using precognitive people who can look into the future to see crimes before they are committed. The Precogs, they are referred as, create the most distinctive group, they are the farthest from "us." They are shunned from the outside world, trapped in a room treated as if they aren't even people. It is not only their abilities that distinguish them from others but the way in which they are used, tools not people. It is easier for humans to distance themselves, to make distinctions rather than to open there eyes and see that we are all others, that there is a "them" and an "us" only because we have made it so.
The producers of major motion pictures work diligently to make sure that their film doesn’t alienate certain groups of people, because it could greatly effect the turn out in audience size. Finding common ground for everyone in the audience to agree on is important in regards to the overall success of the film. In the early stages of the film, Isla and Laszlo enter Rick’s café. Laszlo is unaware of the relationship his wife, Isla, and Rick had during the time of his absence. In the scene pictured, four of the main characters are present: Rick, Isla, Laszlo, and Captain Renault. A viewer could take this particular scene and use it’s elements as foreshadowing of what is to come. Isla is sitting down at the table looking at Rick with a certain smirk on her face. Captain Renault clearly realizes that there is something between the two, without having any prior knowledge to their previous relationship. Laszlo is placed further back to the right. He has a look of concern on his face as he looks at Rick. Both Rick and Isla are staring at one another as if no one else were around. The lighting is very low key with dramatic shadows. This use of light not only sets the mood of the nightclub, but it also adds to the mystery of the situation at hand. The frame is most definitely social. All four characters are in the frame, which captures their meeting.
Set in December 1941 in Casablanca of French-ruled Morocco, the film Casablanca depicts the romantic struggle between an ex-freedom fighting nightclub owner, Rick, and his rediscovered true love, IIsa, who had previously deserted him when the Nazis invaded Paris and later went on to marry someone else. The film also has an underlying reference to American involvement in World War II.
The character of Rick Blaine is complex in that although pessimistic and apathetic—refusing drinks from night club customers, disrespecting his lover Yvonne, and having no interest in politics—he also still reveals a glimmer of the old Rick, a man who was happily in love with IIsa in Paris before she broke his heart. As the film comes to an end, Rick surrenders his reignited love for IIsa, allowing her to escape out of Casablanca with her husband, Louis.
Ricks character can be interpreted as representing the difficulties that arise when one attempts to be neutral, whether it involves a forbidden love or a World War. This relates to the Political Expediency Theory, in which director Michael Curtiz attempts to remain neutral regarding World War II. He used an excess of actors from many different races and a protagonist set on impartiality and detachment (yet who is at times also generous and passionate). In the end however, the main character chooses a side unable retain a complete disregard from the world around him.
The political expediency theory deals with presenting a certain political opinion (or lack there of in this case) in order to please others, rather than staying true to one’s own beliefs and morals.Because this film was released in 1942, the theme of between impossible neutrality parallels to Americas struggle to remain uninvolved in the war.
One important scene where Rick’s neutrality finally falters is when IIsa admits she is still in love with him and they kiss.
Mise en Scene:
Dominant: IIsa would be the dominant in this scene because not only does she take up the majority of the frame, but she also has more lighting casted on her face. She is facing the camera slightly more than Rick is as well.
Subsidiary: Rick would obviously be the next thing a viewer’s eye moves to even thought the background is lighter.
Lighting: The characters in the scene seem to be somewhat casted in a shadow. The background is more lit than the characters but still dim overall. This would probably be considering low lighting.
Camera Proxemics: this is an extreme Close-up because only their faces are within the frame.
Frame: This frame would tight, closing in on their faces with the background out of focus and mostly unidentifiable.
Angle: The camera seems to be at the same level of their faces so would be considered a straight on shot or eye level.
Character proxemics: The characters are in an intimate proxemics of each other.
In Casablanca, the ideology of the movie proves to be deeper than just a typical love story, as many would argue. Set during World War II, the political ideology could only do so much to hide under the overwhelming love story. Before we know about Ilsa, we are introduced to Rick and Renault. These opposing characters dress in contrasting colors, noting their opposing ‘sides’ in the war. Clothed in white at first, and later darker colors, we are led to believe that Rick’s stance in the war is undecided. His nonchalant demeanor and selfish attitude give the appearance of self-imposed power, which we can trace in his relationship with Renault. Rick, being originally from New York, represents what American audiences of that time, 1942, wanted to see. In the end, Rick and Renault trump the German forces invading Casablanca, and allow their friends to escape to America. These dramatic changes from each character appeal to the target audience because of their nationalistic behaviors, especially during that uncertain time in history. The picture above, in Rick’s bar, depicts Rick as a source of power, which will prove to be true at the end of the movie. The four characters are all wearing light colors, reinforcing the idea that they are the ‘good’ in this ideology of good vs. evil. In this scene we see Renault in white as well, as opposed to his usual dark attire, foreshadowing his ultimate rebellion toward the German forces. The proximity of the characters to one another also gives the audience the idea that neither Rick nor Renault know which side they are on. The introduction of Ilsa further confuses Rick as to how involved he would like to be in the chaos of the war, as we can see from the picture, he only has eyes for her. Overall, the picture exudes confusion for all parties, however the lighting suggests that in the end, each party’s confusion will be settled.
In the movie Minority Report the story takes place in a world where the whole justice system literally depends on two precogs. These precogs are humans whose thought can be taken from their heads and put on a screen to be analyzed. Their thoughts are analyzed because their thoughts show the future, future crimes. Precogs show crimes before they are committed so that the head of the police force Tom Anderton, who is played by Tom Cruise, can catch them before the crime is committed. Although this eliminates crime all together and supposedly saves many lives Terri Murray, the author of Our Post Moral Future, and I disagree with this idea. I believe that unless the crime is committed it cannot count as a crime or as Terri puts it " ‘crime’ is meaningless unless it is done, and is a crime precisely because it is done". Punishing someone for just their intent is taking away the freedom of choice and decision. I believe if this new type of justice system were to ever actually become a reality that the public would riot against it taking away their constitutional rights. Also if there were no crimes committed, no one as examples to show what would really happen if a horrible crime was committed then their would be no virtuous people because "what allows us to feel virtuous, as opposed to the vicious people who commit crimes, is that we choose not to act upon these thoughts". Terri also makes a good point by saying, "if we are prepared to punish people for what they merely intend to do, are we also prepared to reward people for good intentions before a virtuous deed is done?". In conclusion I think the whole idea of arresting people for a crime that has not been officially committed is violating rights and wrong.
.jpg)
