Villacreces: Beowulf vs Sea Monsters

The movie Beowulf (2007) by the director Robert Zemeckis uses the technique of " motion capture". This technique basically record movement and transforms it to a digital model. The reason why this technique was employed was because, Beowulf is an action movie, and the movement and actions performed by the characters in the movie are impossible to make with live actors. With this in mind, the creators of this movie were able to portray the characters such as Beowulf, Grendel, Grendel's mother, and other characters in the movie. The portrayal of the characters is ok, but the rest of the aspects of the movie have some flaws, that to not make justice these. 

For example, the scene in which Beowulf describes his battle against the Sea Monsters. In this scene the image of Beowulf is good, his physical appearance looks like the rest of the movie, but the portrayal of the water is not very good. Water shines, water has different movement and there is not an uniform movement as it is portrayed in this scene. The animatos did not give water a real appearance as they do to the monster and to Beowulf. If you do mise scene, you notice that the lighting of the scene is dull and does not focus on beowulf, the monster or the water, it is just plain and dull. The dominant of the scene is the monster and Beowulf flying towards him. The form of this scene is closed, the fact that there is monster makes the scene stylish and with details, which makes it not real and made up. Also how the movie is made with computer animation makes it closed. There is a social camera proxemix and a wide shot, you can see the monsters the character and the setting at the same time. The character proxemix is persona, because is Beowulf against the monster, its their moment before one of the makes the first move. 

In my opinion the movie does a good portrayal of the characters of the movie, because even though the movie is computer animated you still have the essence of the actors that portray each one of them. You know it is them. The rest of the aspects of the movie such as the battle seen and background are not employed well. 

Olivia Tucker, Closer, Character Larry

Alright so I finally watched the film closer. First of all, I love this film. The acting is awesome, you can cut the tension with a knife and the way the scenes are split up make the film more interesting even though its only focused on only two relationships. the beginning scene where Dan and Alice see eachother before she gets hit by a car gave me goosebumps. The song "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" by Bob Crewe fir the scene perfectly and makes you so excited and kind of scared where the plot of this movie is going to go.

Its very hard to say who the main character of this film is considering every character has their own drama and scenes where they are the main character. but if i had to choose one it would have to be the character Larry played by Clive Owen. He starts out looking on a porn AIM sight trying to obviously find a hooker or a very slutty girl to be with, but thanks to Dan he finds Anna. They both end up dating for four months and soon get married. This is when anyone watching the film would start to think that Larry is starting to become a decent guy. But him becoming a decent man doesn't mean that hes become stupid. He still is suspicious when Anna is dressed after "taking a bath". When Anna leaves him for Dan he is seen as the underdog of the story but then he slowly starts to come back and mess with everyone which makes him seen as the main character. For instance when he sleeps with Anna just to get inside Dan's head and also sleeps with Alice and equally gets inside Dan's head again. This cause Dan to pretty much go insane with wonder as to what exactly happened with each girl and even cry in front of Larry. Larry ends up with Anna and has simply manipulated and played every other character in the film, therefor making him the main character.

McCay: Beowulf Blog Prompt

Choose a scene from Beowulf that needs further editing or enhancing and do an analysis of how you would change the scene. Do not forget to post a picture. Your mise en scene analysis should point out the weakness in the scene.

Worthy: Strongest Character of Closer

In Closer, Clive Owen's character Larry emerges as an accidental acquaintance of Anna, the result of a practical joke on behalf of Dan. He is intriguing and not quite recreant. The online chat gives the audience the false pretense that Larry is timid. He is anything but this.

As Anna and Larry's relationship unfolds, Larry emerges as self-assured and sometimes callous, but never fearful. He wears his arrogance like a scarf and uses it not only to convince Anna to reconsider their divorce, but to persuade Alice/Jane to sleep with him and Dan to recant his "love" for Anna. Larry upholds his masculinity like a badge of honor and displays it in times of heightened stress and submission.

In the scene above, Larry is meeting with Anna to finalize their divorce. Knowing Anna will comply, Larry purposes that they sleep together one last time. His intentions are retaliation, personal gain and glory. In this still photo, we can see the intensity in Larry's eyes. Brow furrowed and frown lines present, we see he has no intention of allowing this conversation to end without having the upper hand. His hands are folded like most business men in the midst of a proposition. He leans forward, inviting himself into Anna's space; asserting his dominance.

The director was careful to place two roses into the frame, one in the foreground and the other in the background. While the restaurant was decorated with them, the foreground rose reminds us that Larry does have some charm to balance out his more resolute qualities. We are reminded that, regardless of his theatrics, he is still in love. This display is duly noted in the scene where Anna admits her adultery to Larry just after his trip to New York. We see a moment of vulnerability when he begins to cry.

While all four actors did an excellent job of capturing the essence of their characters, it is apparent that Clive Owen became Larry throughout the making of this film.

Kehoe: Larry is the Strongest

The film Closer showcases the talents of all of its stars very effectively, but Clive Owen, in the role of Larry, emerges as the strongest of the characters. In the beginning of the film Larry is nebbish and jovial, but as the film progresses he emerges as a man who will stop at nothing to get what he wants. In the above scene Anna, played by Julia Roberts, is meeting with Larry in order to have him sign their divorce papers. It is in this scene that Larry convinces Anna to sleep with him a final time, which eventually leads to the destruction of her relationship with Jude Law.
This scene is the first step in Larry’s underhanded plan to win Anna back. The most notable aspect of the frame is the color values. Not only in the contrast of the characters, but also in the scene as a whole. The table and chairs are fairly devoid of color, as is the scenery in the window behind them, even the rose at the center of the table appears to be black. All of these elements give the scene a dark and cheerless tone. Larry’s dark clothing contrasting with Anna’s bright white symbolizes his transformation from a character that is jocular and slightly geeky, to a man that is cold and calculating.
A notable subsidiary object in the scene is the vertical line that is formed by the window divider and the leg of the table. It runs from top to bottom to represent the void that has grown between Larry and Anna. This rift is becomes even more defined in the character proxemics. Even though the shot is tightly framed, both Anna and Larry sit at the very edges of the frame, as if to be as far as possible from one another.
Larry, played by Clive Owen, comes across as the strongest character in the film. Not only does he win Anna back but also gets his revenge by destroying Dan and Alice’s relationship. What makes Larry the strongest out of all the characters is that he never changes what he wants through out the movie. In the beginning all he wants is to be with Anna and when she leaves him all he wants is to get her back.

Villacreces: Closer Strongest Character

In the movie “Closer” by the director Mike Nochols, relationships, love, cheating, and hurting are the recurring and main themes. The four main characters, Dan (Jude Law), Alice (Natalie Portman), Larry (Clive Owen) and Anna (Julia Roberts) are part of a four person relationships that is destroying each one of them. In my opinion the strongest character in Closer is Dan (Jude Law). Although he is a peaceful and quiet character, he is the one that brings all four characters “closer”. To Larry and Anna he was considered “cupid” because his game in the Internet with Larry cause Larry and Anna to meet. To Alice he was the man he loved, and the man that was making her stay in London instead of running away. Once Dan left Alice for Anna, Alice ran away and decided to hide.

Dan had the major impact in the actions of the other three characters. He did not know what he wanted, so every time he changed his mind the rest of the characters would change. For example, when he decided to tell Alice that he was seeing Anna, and Anna tells Larry. Both Anna and Dan are together, while Larry and Alice meet and have a sexual encounter. In the movie Dan is a writer, as a writer he dictates what the characters do, that is what he was doing to Alice, Anna and Larry. He was moving them around as he wanted, but at the end he ends up alone.

In this scene we have Alice (Natalie Portman) standing alone next to her picture in Anna's exposition. The dominant in this frame is Alice's picture. In this picture she looks sad because she found out that Dan had cheated on her with Anna. She is also in this scene and her pose look s as if she is disappointed and sad, just like the picture. It has been a year since she found that out, and that image is following her once again. She feels as disappointed as she was a year ago. The picture presents a flashback from that day at the loft.

The shot and camera proxemics are form far away, it is a full wide shot. You are able to see the whole background and the character. The character is not the main focus of the shot that is why she is small and with no movement. Also the lighting focuses more in the photograph than in the character, the character is just there in the darkness as if she was sad and hiding from the rest of the people in the exposition.

In the camera angle it seems as if we were looking down at the character with pity, as if we knew why she was sad. We know what happened in the scene in which the photograph was taken and in the scene that is happening know. We know her pain.

Closer is very interesting movie about love, relationships and deception. All fou actors made a great job presenting each character as they should have.

Harper Closer

In the film Closer, I believe that the strongest character is Clive Owen's character Larry. He seems to show the most emotion in this film. When I began to watch the movie my first thought was to say that Jude Law, Daniel, was the strongest character. But then the movie introduced Larry into the "love square" and I knew that he was going to be the strongest character. Without his over emotional questions to Julia Roberts' character, Anne, during the break-up, the whole "break-up scene" between both couples would have been unrealistic. His sexual desires, cheating, lying, anger, and choice of words all seem more realistic than the other characters in the film. No one else showed as much attitude or personality as he did. Although, I believe that Natalie Portman's character, Alice/Jane, was the main character she was not the strongest.

Character Placement: Owen is placed to one side of the frame while Portman is place to the opposite side, but them as a whole (looking closely into each others eyes) are very much centered.

Framing: The frame is tight. In this scene the characters were in a private room, The Paradise Suite, where Alice danced for Larry. When Larry is in the room at first he seems intrigued by Alice dancing and stripping for him. Then he gets frustrated with her because she does not tell him who the "real" Alice is.

Character Proxemics: The space between the characters is personal. They are close, but they aren't too close. Alice keeps reminding him that there is a no touch policy, which makes this shot impossible to be intimate.

Slan- Closer

"Closer" is a remarkable film. The acting in this film is real. The acting makes this film blossom. When their emotions changed my emotions changed. I could feel the heartache and pain in each scene. I could feel the love and passion. Over all it was a never-ending circle of love, happiness, and sadness. At the end, everything was not as it seemed to be.

I believe the strongest actor in this film was Clive Owen (Larry). He was the bastard you loved to hate. Larry emotions were raw and real. Owen did not hold anything back. He was manipulative, not as much as Alice, but he's second in line for manipulation category. Own really brought Larry to life. He knew how to get under everyone's skin and hit the right nerves. Larry was the one who was blunt and honest.

I think you can see his manipulation skills in effect in the Dan confronts Larry scene in Larry's office. The scene goes back in forth with the two like an argument for the first few minutes of the scene. The lighting in the room is dim and unnatural. There is a bright light that can be seen as the camera goes back in forth between their arguing. One is above Larry's head and the other one to the side of Dan's head. I feel like it's the lightbulb that pops up when you have a great idea. Larry is above his head speaks that his ideas about the situation are better.

The framing in the film is loose. You can tell each character has some bit of room for moving during the arguing. You can see both sides of the room when the camera jumps to each character as they make a point in their arguing. It gives them the freedom to move around to scream and shout if they need to.

The proximity of the characters is social. You can tell by how far they are from each other. The distance is kept social because even though it is about women it is business. At this distance it doesn't seem like a personal conflict between two people but it is. Dan basically makes an appointment with Larry to plead for Anna and Larry treats it like a social meeting by staying at his desk throughout the arguing.

Armato, Law comes the closest in "Closer"

In the film Closer, it's difficult to describe any of the characters as "strong." Alice (Natalie Portman) relies her own happiness on her relationship status; she needs a man to be satisfied with herself, basically. Anna (Julia Roberts) settles for an unhappy life because, for some reason or another, she feels that she doesn't deserve a happy one. Larry (Clive Owen) manipulates the other characters into getting what he wants, at the expense of all the others' satisfaction. And Dan (Jude Law) is slave to his emotions, changing his mind on a whim several times throughout the film. Law, though, comes the closest to being the strongest character because of his thorough and unnecessary honesty with Anna, Alice, and Larry, his willingness to accept when things can't go his way (Anna going back to Larry, for instance), and his motivation to change his unsatisfactory situations when appropriate (his initial break-up with Alice to go to Anna).

In the scene above, Law's character Dan could have just as easily not mentioned his relationship with Anna and continued on being involved with both women. However, he chooses to be honest with Alice. And when she needs comfort, he swallows his pride and lets her rest on his shoulder. Even though he doesn't love her any more, he finds it appropriate to comfort her, a trait not shared by any of the other characters when they hurt somebody. (Anna doesn't comfort Larry when they first split, Larry doesn't comfort Dan when Dan travels to Larry's office, and Alice doesn't comfort Dan in the hotel room when they are preparing to leave for New York.)



Dominant: Jude Law's face is dominant in this shot. His head is close to the top of the screen and he is in the foreground, attributes which both lead the audience to pay attention to his face before anything else.

Camera Proxemics: In this image, the camera is placed at a social distance. We can see Most of Law's and Portman's bodies.

Character Proxemics: Portman and Law are at a personal distance from each other. While they are not incredibly close together, they are clearly in the middle of interacting with each other. This is apparent even though Law's back is turned on Portman, because she is focused on him.

Himmelberg - Closer - Mise en Scene

Closer was a very interesting and "real" movie. I had no idea what to expect when I watched the first scene but then it transformed into a huge love square that truly tore at your emotional heart strings and left you guessing as to what the final outcome was going to be.


That being said, I think by far the strongest actor in the movie was Natalie Portman's character Alice or Jane(as we later find out). You immediately can tell she is the strongest character from the very first scene. In the scene she is walking through the crowded streets of London and Jude Law's character makes eye contact with her and can't look away. She has an air of self-purpose and arrogance when it comes to the way that men see her that immediately makes her the dominant character. She is obviously a girl that knows what she wants and gets what she wants from men. Throughout the movie her character goes through a lot of ups and downs, but even when she is vulernable she is still strong. For example when Daniel tells her that he has been seeing Anna for a year she gets very upset and crys and then goes over to him and starts kissing him and being pathetic, she asks him to make her tea. When he gets up to get the tea and turns his back on her, she leaves without saying or leaving anything behind. She is clearly in control of the situation. Also the ending where you find out that the entire relationship she had with Daniel she was lieing to him, because her real name was Jane and then the very last scene that parallels the very first scene, except being in New York completely shows her strongness. She walks down the New York street looking the same way she did in London. She has a new style, but the same confidence and "swag" as she did before.

This picture is kind of the signature pose for her character. I think it captures alot of her personality though. It is innocent, but playful, interesting, but quizical, flirty, but non chalant. It shows her strong character. One of the major reasons I see her as being strong is because she is resourseful and can manipulate a situation so that she gets what she wants and this photo is a prime example of that. She is obviously the dominant, because there are only a few people in the background, but they are hardly noticable and are blurred out so we focus on her face. The camera proxemics are initmate because it is a close up of her face from the next up. The lighting is low key in the background with a spot light on her face. Obviously the director is trying to draw the audience to look at her face closely. It is "low key" lighting , first ,because of the setting( a strip club) and second becasue it adds to the flirty strong character that she is.

Knoepfler, Wolfmen

I didn't get to watch the entirety of the original Wolfman due to streaming difficulties, but I'd like to talk about the differences between the special effects of the two movies and the impact they had on audiences at the time.

In the original from 1941, special effects were very limited. The transformation scene only shows the legs, which would be a huge shock to audiences at the time. Modern audiences look back on this and laugh due to the advances in special effects technology. The 1941 audience, however, were amazed and horrified by the transformation. In a sense, I think the older version is better. By not showing the whole body transformation and focusing only on the legs, George Waggner lets the audiences' minds imagine what is happening. Also, there are no direct scenes of violence. It's always hidden or implied. I think this could produce a far more horrifying effect than showing the transformation itself. It creates more suspense and terror of the unknown.

Fast forward to 2010: In this version of the film, the audience is exposed to every aspect of the Wolfman, including the transformation and the bloody encounters with the townsfolk. If the 1941 audience were to see this version, they would be disgusted, horrified, and might die of a heart attack in the theatre. They just weren't used to being exposed to this sort of violence and reality. That's the problem I have with films these days. Audiences are too numb to real suspense and horror. Unless excessive blood and explosions are shown, audiences lose interest. I wouldn't say that the 2010 film would be better if it stuck to the roots of not directly showing violence, but it would show a different kind of horror.

In conclusion, 2010 Wolfman: shock horror. 1941 Wolf Man: suspense horror. Two completely different ways of telling the same story. Both: awesome. I'll howl to that.

McCay: Closer Blog on Acting

Which Actor emerges as the strongest character in Closer (remember, actor applies to both male and female)? Choose a frame of that actor (post it on the blog,) and do a mise en scene analysis of the frame to support your claim. You must analyze three elements of mise en scene in your blog.

Johnson: Technology Makes All the Difference

It is evident in watching both the 1941 and 2010 versions of The Wolfman, that technology, and therefor the making of movies has become a lot more advanced and complicated over the past 70 years. What makes this fact so evident is the attempts by each director to push the special effects boundaries of their time. As you can see from this clip, the 1941 version of The Wolfman was not very asthetically apleasing, but got the message across, as well as left room for the audience's imagination. George Waggner did not try to attempt anything that would take away from the movie. Rather than try to show the entirety of Lon Chaney transformation, Waggner decided to only briefly show human feet transforming into the feet of a werewolf. This was probably the best decision George Waggner could have made, because a full transformation would have made the movie way over the top and would have most likely looked ridiculous. This is the problem Joe Johnston had in his version of the film.



In the 2010 version of The Wolfman, there is no room left for the audiences imagination. Director, Joe Johnston shows the viewer exactly what happens to Lawrence Talbot by using CGI (computer-generated imagery). This is not a good thing in my mind. Johnston used the computers too much to create the Wolfman's metomorphosis. Talbot's transformation is more comical than scary in the 2010 version because it is so unbelievable. The audience sees the claws pop out of his fingers, his eyes dilate and bulge, and the hair grow all over his body. Even 70 years after the original, it seems technology still wasn't good enough to truly terrify the audience. In my opinion, the transformation scene from the original 1941 Wolfman is much more thrilling and suspenseful than it's 2010 remake.

Seither The Wolfman Changes

Though both the 1941 version of The Wolfman, directed by George Waggner, and the 2010 version of The Wolfman, directed by Joe Johnston, both carry the same title and have a few similarities in plot, the two films are drastically different in almost every way. Differences in the plot of the two films are probably the most obvious difference to the casual viewer, but it is the difference in cinematographic techniques which stand out to the discerning viewer. In the original version the directors were definitely limited by the technology that was available to them in depicting Larry Talbot's (Lon Chaney Jr.) transformation into the wolfman. First, the transformation starts off as an increase of hair on Larry's legs, and then the director begins to splice in frames which depict increasingly wolf-like legs and feet. For the period during which this movie was filmed, there is no doubt that this was the pinnacle of technology, but by modern standards it is simple and unimpressive. In the 2010 version of the film, the director had much more advanced techniques to make the transformation into the wolfman seem much more horrifying and realistic; however, the CGI (computer generated imagery) used in the modern version does seem fake in its own unique way. Another interesting difference between the two film's representations of the transformation into the wolfman is that the 1941 version's is much less violent than the 2010 version is. In the 1941 film the Talbot simply sits in a chair watching as his legs become hairier and his feet become a wolf's paws. Contrastigly, in Johnston's The Wolfman Talbot writhes and screams as he changes into the wolfman. Because of this difference, the modern The Wolfman seems more a action/horror film than does the more psychologically thrilling 1941 version.

VS.

Laura Sanders- Wolfman

Curt Siodmak's story of the "Wolfman" is depicted with great difference from Geogre Waggner's 1941 film to Joe Johnston's version in 2010. Waggner's film retains a much more simplistic plot and, given the year, cinematography skills. Johnston's new version is filled with added elements of the plot, and while he did manage to keep certain elements of the look of Waggner's original wolfman, the cinematography was far more advanced. It was the actual transformation of the characters into the wolfman that gave way to the greatest differences of the two films. It is only fair to note that the cinematographers of this day are blessed with far more advances than those of 1941, and for this reason the transformation greatly differed in each scene. Waggner's 1941 transformation obviously used every cinematographic capability available at the time, but lacked detail. The camera focused on more simple changes of the feet, growing hair, enlarging by the second. Only then was our eye drawn to the full transformation that had taken place. Johnston's 2010 transformation was dark, and almost fake-looking, as much of the cinematography can be these days. It maintains a much harsher, violent depiction than its predecessor.  

Here in the first part of this clip is the transformation of Lon Chaney Jr. into the wolfman in Waggner's 1941 film:






Here is the 2010 version of the transformation:

Mise-en-scene: True Romance

Quentin Tarantino is one of the best directors when it come to Mise-en-scene and setting up a scene to give it the most dramatic and emotional feel. In this classic scene from "True Romance,"you can see how Tarantino carefully chooses his dominant, subsidiary contrasts, character placement and proxemics, staging, and especially lighting.

    The lighting is the most important element of Mise-en-scene in this scene. Tarantino uses the lighting to help the audience feel (rather than hear) what kind of men the characters are. The sole source of light in the scene is only coming down upon Dennis Hopper (foreground) and Christopher Walken (background) even though there are four other men in the scene. And while the light seems to give Dennis Hopper a glow, it darkens the face of Christopher Walken, giving the audience the feel that he is the antagonist.

    It is clear that our antagonist is the dominant in this scene. Our eyes are immediately drawn to Walken holding the cup of coffee. Our eyes are then drawn over to our protagonist, and subsidiary contrast Dennis Hopper. The reason for our eyes to shift in this way to both of these characters is mainly due to the lighting key, but is also a large result of staging and character placement and proxemics. Tarantino made this scene as aesthetically appealing as it is dark and eerie. His scene setup, as well as the dialogue that goes with it makes it one of the best scenes in movie history. Just watch...

Cardon: Mise en Scene of Igby Goes Down

The dominant in this image from Igby Goes Down could either be the father in the center back, or the back of the mother’s head in the foreground. I would argue that it is reasonably the father. There is a triangle effect including the father and the two boys, one placed on each side. Therefore one could assume that that particular arrangement of characters directs the eye to focus on the father. The lighting key is relatively medium but more on the high key level due to the brightness of the table lamps in the background. They almost sort of light/illuminate the father. In terms of camera proxemics, I would say that this frame is social. You get a view of the room they are in and what they are doing (having dinner). As for the back of the mother’s head, that would be considered intimate even though she is out of focus. An interesting use of set props that I noticed is the three paintings on the wall. You have the larger one directly behind the father, and then the two smaller ones above the young boys.

This frame clearly portrays the scene. The viewer can easily conclude that something isn’t right with the father due to his lack of clothing in a clearly formal home. Then there is his son to the right of the frame that is raising his glass in agreement/admiration. The fact that the mother’s head is out of focus and that we are shown the back of it pretty much sets the tone of how the couple feels about one another. The expression on the father’s face also reveals this. Overall, I think that this frame is well done. The character placement is well calculated and their body placement is appropriate in regards to the context.

Demo blog - Apocalypse Now

In this still, taken from

Francis Ford Coppala's 1979 Vietnam War film Apocalypse Now, the main character Capt. Willard represents the dominant image.The shot focuses on Willard in an effort to contrast him with the dreamlike/halluciantroy scene taking place behind him. The extreme brightness in the background highlights the fog and adds to the hallucinatroy aspect of this image. The characters are arranged proxemically social/public. On one hand the shot is social because there seems to be an inner circle of characters and public as well becuase it is obvious to the viewer that many other people are surrounding the main characters. This still is taken right before the culmination of the film. Here Capt. Willard has finally stumbled out of the ominous jungle and upon the village occupied by Colonel Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando) and his disciples. The village as a whole is seen as a kind of mythological outpost. A place that none of the American soldiers are sure exists and if so, what will be waiting when they arrive there. This still image exemplifies the mysticism surrounding the village. You see Willard, who appears to be the only sane person left. You see his ally (far right) covered in blood, wearing a leaf atop his head, and looking utterly confused. In the background you see forbidding rougue anglo soldiers. Fading into the fog there are countless minions of natives. On the left is Dennis Hopper's character who appears to be saying something which no one is paying attention to. The characters in the film, which become increasingly apart from reality the further they journey into the jungle, are seen here amidst a chaos which is so bizzare that none of them can comprehend it.

The Metamorphosis - becoming a Wolf in 1941 vs. 2010

The Wolfman of 2010 relied heavily on the use of of computer generated images to display the man-into-werewolf transistion of Benicio Del Toro. On the opposite end of the spectrum was the Lon Chaney Jr.'s 1941 transistion from man to monster. In the pre-digital version the camera focuses on the hands and face of Chaney as he becomes a monster. This sequence is done using make-up and lighting effects. The camera stops with the display of the increasingly lupine apperence of the hands and face of Chaney. The complete metamorphosis of the actor is left to the imagination of the audience. In 2010 the metamorphosis is seen by the audience completley. Bencicio Del Toro is at first a man, then he slowly, painfully becomes the beast, with nothing left to the imagination of the audience. Of course, in 2010 the filmmakers are much more capable of caputring the metamorphosis than they were when making the original in 1941. The capability of the digital age allows the filmmakers to display every detail of the transisition, using every range of camera proxemics from intimate onto public. Even so, the CGI adds a quality of silliness to the film. Silliness where in the 1941 the transistion was to be seen as more sinister. The sinister nature of the transistion in the 1941 version stems from the use of very intimate camera proxemics. These close range allow the audience to feel the intense, uneasy, entrapped state that is overcoming Lon Chaney Jr.

 

The picture I chose is from a scene in the film I, Robot starring Will Smith. The dominant of the photo is the robot, named Sonny, as he is what draws the attention of the person looking at the scene. The open frame suggests that these robots are all the same however the personal proximate and slightly tilted up angle of the camera focused on sonny suggests that he is above the rest of the robots. The tilted camera allows the viewer to accept Sonny as more powerful or have more of a purpose than the other robots who look like they are all identical. The proximate defines Sonny as the one object in the frame to pay attention to because he has much more importance than anything else in the frame. The lighting in the frame is very high, it takes place outside in a scrap metal or storage area where the sun shines brightly.

Wolfman Transformation - Craig Malveaux

The 1941 horror film Wolfman written by Curt Siodmak was recently remade in 2010 starring Benicio del Toro and Anthony Hopkins. Between the 1941 and 2010 film, there are several significant changes moviegoers will notice after leaving theaters.

One of the changes is the original plot. The 2010 film's plot has been altered and has been extended, however, this isn't the only noticeable change. The other noticeable change is the transformation of the wolfman in the 1941 and 2010 films. Each film took a very different approach to showing a man turn into a flesh eating beast.

In the 1941 film, the transformation was very simple and zoomed in on one particular part of the body to show the changes. For example, in one of the scenes, the full moon passed in the sky and the camera focused directly onto the man's feet. His feet took nearly the entire frame and began to get progressively hairier with each passing second. 

I also noticed that the changes took place from top to bottom as a sort of black line ran down the screen showing the changes. This is the same exact approach they took when focusing on the man's face instead of his feet. 

To say the 2010 film handled its transformation scenes differently would be an understatement. While in the hospital strapped to the chair, Benicio's transformation into the wolfman started with his head cracking and parts of his cheek bones bulging out. The noise he made and strange behavior notified the viewers that a change was soon to come. The camera then focused on his hands which were disjointing and then quickly showed his feet bursting out of his shoes. Toro's mouth began expanding, his teeth began receding and his eyes grew the size of golfballs. The transformation came to completion with his ears growing out and teeth getting sharper. 

Both transformations were handled entirely different, obviously due to the technology each director possessed at the time. The 1941 film used a simplistic way of showing a change while the 2010 film showed a more complex, almost unrealistic looking change. 

<object width="660" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XGybmm514w?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XGybmm514w?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object>




<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1q4Wn63uof8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1q4Wn63uof8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

Coulter-Wolfman '10

The 2010 version of "The Wolfman" placed stock in the advanced abilities of new wave CGI effects to make the transformation from man to beast into a believable event. While the CGI effects were in fact great, as displayed in slow-motion in the video below, they were not enough to carry the movie from the depths of boring humor that pervaded this train wreck of a film. The plot of the film takes place majoritivty in the Blackmoor Woods which is of course full of fog at all times. The film tried to use this blanket of mystery to heighten suspense, but instead due to poor high lighting just made it very hard to see what was happening. The scene I selected (Top) was one of the few well done moments of the whole film the light from the full moon illuminating a fully wolfed out Benicio del Toro, howling over a 19th century London as the "beast had his day." This scene's dominate figure is the wolfman, with a secondary dominance on the moon and it high key light shining down. The scene is loosely framed with the Wolfman's back to the camera at a three-quarter turn, with a slight up angle showing the figures dominance over the city perhaps and maintaining his separation from the audience by being turned away at the same time. But even in the well detailed CGI London being looked down upon the fog remains giving the scene a morose feeling. Overall this film made me laugh more than it scared me, but I did dig the bone twisting effects.

Cooper Wolfman

As human society and technology evolve our entertainment industry evolves with them. This can not be more apparent than in the transformation scenes of the two Wolfman movies, The Wolfman (2010) directed by Joe Johnston and The Wolfman (1941) directed by George Waggner. In the 1941 version of the movie, the filmmakers had limited technology to make the transformation as scary as they could make it. They take you almost frame by frame as Larry Talbot removes his clothing one piece at a time to reveal a hideous transformation occurring. We see his nails grow and his legs sprout a heavy fur coat, but the rest of the horrid transformation is left up to the imagination.
In the newer 2010 version of the film, the transformation is much more intense. During the scene where the doctors are trying to prove that he won't morph, the viewer is presented with a much more grisly transformation. “Kill me!” echoes throughout the audience hall as the first snap, crackle, pop of bones begins. His shoes are ripped off by his growing sharp toenails and the shifting of his bone structure. The viewer watches as his big toe breaks and turns into a paw, his teeth and jawbone structure morphs, and the whole time he gradually grows fur. As the viewer watches Larry Talbot physically morph, he mentally changes as well. His human mentality is being taken over by a bestial rage.
These two transformations show how the idea of the monster is growing and evolving as well. Its no longer a subtle horror that contains human elements, but a much more grisly and ghastly visage. The human side of the 2010 monster is almost but completely gone. The monster is bigger, badder, and way more destructive, as can be seen by the way he easily rips his victims limb from limb. The violence of this is now much more accepted in our society than it would have been in the 1940s.

Seither Shawshank Analysis

In this image from The Shawshank Redemption, directed by Frank Darabont, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) has just arrived at Shawshank Prison to serve out a life sentence for a crime that he did not commit. The dominant in this scene is Dufresne. He is the dominant because he is in the center of the frame in the middle of the only other prisoners in the frame. His central placement calls the viewers attention to him, thus making him the dominant. The lighting key is natural. There do not seem to be any filters or effects that were used to produce the lighting for the scene. The camera proxemics straddle the boundary between personal and social, and they give the viewer the sense that the characters are somewhat "separate." The character proxemics are personal, if not almost intimate. The characters' proximity to each other is caused by the reality that they are handcuffed to each other, but it also serves another purpose. The characters closeness to each other portrays them as being together in the hardships they will undoubtedly face once inside Shawshank. During the remaining duration of this scene, the "veteran" inmates place bets on which one of the "newfish" will breakdown during their first night in the prison. The shot pictured here illuminates the larger scene by bringing the viewers attention to Dufresne, who is the person that Red (Morgan Freeman), who is the narrator, picks to breakdown first. The camera and character proxemics also illuminate the larger scene by portraying Dufresne and the rest of the new inmates as separate from the general population of the prison.

Wolfman: 2010 vs. 1941

2010

The context of the remake remains relatively similar to the original, but the visual and sound effects are very different.  The original film was in black-and-white and was (for better or worse) restricted to the technological capabilities that are available today. The combination of advancements in technology and cosmetology has transformed the Wolfman from a rather hairy, deranged-looking villain (1941) into an extremely masculine, vicious-looking monster (2010).

1941

In addition to the drastic changes in the Wolfman’s appearance, the remake incorporates new levels of gore and violence, and is able to show the entire transformation process between Talbot and the Wolfman.  Many of the scenes in the remake have familiar settings in terms of form and framing, but the remake uses a very modern approach to lens, density, and obviously color values.   For instance, the attack scenes in the woods for both films have “closed” forms since the victims are trapped in an unpatrolled area with the Wolfman in reach, and since the Wolfman is in the same territory they both have “tight” framing.  The lens/filter and density is greatly enhanced in the remake as they use modern technology to filter out props and distort images such as backdrops with special effects like powerful winds and rushing waterfalls.  

I would say that the 1941 version is more appealing to film critics and those appreciative of classic films with soft visuals, while the remake appeals to those who value intense graphics and special effects.   Lastly, it should be mentioned that while the visuals in the two films are very different, both production teams utilized the modern technology of their respected age (so in that sense they are similar).

Demonstration Blog: Mise En Scene

Intro to Film and Digital Media

Demonstration Blog

Mise En Scène

Eddy Glickert

Cover Art

                                                               Screenshot

1. Dominant - Viewers are immediately attracted to the gun pointed directly at Henry's face.  This area of action is isolated from the rest of the screen.  Henry's stunned face has compelling contrast, while the the pillow immediately surrounding his face has very little contrast. 
2. Lighting Key - The gun and Henry's face are high-key spotlights while the darkness around his face is low-key contrast. 
3. Camera Proxemics -  The screenshot is angled downward and the action is extremely close to the camera. 
4. Character Proxemics - There is very little space between Karen (holding the gun) and Henry. This scene is shot at an intimate range between husband and wife during a domestic dispute.

Armato: The Wolfman, Technique vs. Technology

Obviously, the 2010 version of The Wolfman has more advanced computer animation capabilities and is able to provide a more visually convincing transformation of the movie's main character into a wolf creature. While neither looks incredibly realistic (ignoring, of course, the nonexistence of werewolves), the 2010 version depicts a more believable process of transformation, rather than the 1941 method, which was simply a fade from human to creature.

If we look at these two transformation scenes in the context of available technology at the time of the films' releases, however, the 1941 version is far more impressive. The 2010 version's computer animation resembles a cartoon rather than a live-action sequence. Of course, the transformation sequence essentially is a cartoon, but other studios in these times produce far more convincing digitally animated sequences. Wolfman 2010 did not show any mastery of modern CGI technology, while Wolfman 1941 shows a mastery of the available special effects technology of its time.

Griffin: The Wolfmans of 1941 & 2010

The transformation of the 1941 Wolfman film is mostly characterized by a gradual increase in body hair. First, heavy tufts appear on Larry's legs, then spreading to create the monster seen in the picture on the left. He walks bent over, but not completely on all fours. This wolfman is alarming, but seems more demented and clumsy than the modern-day incarnation of 2010. Benicio del Toro's Wolfman is fiercer, stronger, and more terrifying. His transformation from man to beast has a more suspenseful pacing Each part of his body is given focus as it shifts into monster. The way in which his body is revealed contrasts with the upfront style of ‘41. The ‘10 wolfman is gradually revealed through shadows, momentary head shots, profile views, close ups on his claws, feet, eyes popping. This transformation is more impacting and precious than the brusque, sillier version of ‘41. The ‘10 feels more “real” because of the physical logistics of transforming that are shown: the bloating of his face, the popping of jewelry and clothing no longer able to fit to the growing body. The modern wolfman is stronger and more agile, and rather than just transforming into a very hairy man, he actually becomes a wolf. He gallops through the forests on all fours, whereas the older wolfman looks like a lost zombie. Del Toro’s wolfman is also more fleshed out, given the more sophisticated sound effects attributed to his monster, as well as the sense that there is this separate, evil force bursting out of the man. However, on a conceptual level, the older wolfman appeals to me more because he represents the classic archetype of a tragic hero in ancient Greek tragedy. Larry becomes entangled with evil through his heroism in defending the first victim of a were-wolf in the film. By no fault of his own, his fortune is suddenly reversed. This inexplicable, senseless destiny is profound as it references the similar protagonists in tragedies, also slighted by fate  In this newer version, psychological theory is applied to understand why is this man a monster.

Wolfman Comparisons Olivia Tucker

There are obviously many differences between the 2010 Wolfman and the 1941 Wolfman. Mostly being the effects, obviously the lighting the coloring and helped to make the '10 version more realistic and scary compared to just black and white. Also the changes in character relationships definitely became more "hollywood". For instance in the '41 film Gwen is just a local owner of an antique shop. While in the '10 film she is Ben's fiance which ofcourse makes things more dramatics when her and Lawrence find they have feelings for eachother. But one of the main differences would be the special effects. There is alot more blood and gore in the '10 film and the transformation scene looks more realistic. In the '41 film the transformation scene is just all around unconvincing while in the '10 Wolfman the transformation scene could be the best part. Also the ending is a very big difference between the two films. In the '41 film it just ends with Lawrence running away from the police turning into his human form while in the '10 film the plot is brought to a better ending that ties up most of the loose ends with Gwen shooting him. Ofcourse the '10 fil mwas more convincing and enjoyable to watch but I did find that it was too long and seemed to be dragged out. Also I thought the actor, Benicio Del Toro, wasn't very convincing. But all around the movie was well made and the settings were beautiful.

Azreen I., Wolfman

There are striking differences in the transformation from man to wolf in the 1949 Wolf Man and the 2010 Wolf Man. Obviously, the 1949 Wolf Man would be expected to have less of special effects considering the time it was made. In the 1949 version, the transformation of man to wolf was not that visually active. For majority of the transformation, they only showed the hair on his feet get longer. It was not actually shown how the transformation took place. It was kept to a very minimal. Thus, leaving the audience to imagine how Lon Chaney Jr. fully transformed from a man to a wolf man. Also, the picture quality and the fact that it was black and white does not make it visually attractive to the eyes. Also, one can tell that Jon Chaney Jr.'s wolf man seemed very fake like. Obviously, if we were to think of it from the point of view of someone watching it when it was released in 1949, it would be a great feat. Around those years, there was no movie like Wolf Man. But nowadays, visual effects/special effects play an important role in practically every movie. In the 2010 version of Wolf Man, the special effects of the transformation were pretty vivid. They show how Benecio Del Toro's body changes. From the hands getting distorted, from blood coming out of the nails as they grow longer, from the bones in his face shifting to even how the teeth change. The most visual transformation scene is when Benecio Del Toro was in the hospital room with all the doctors there to observe him. The transformation scene in the 2010 version is obviously more visually pleasing. One can actually see his transformation. Also, the minute details such as blood coming out of his mouth while his fangs replace his teeth make it more realistic as well. In all, the 2010 version of The Wolf Man showed a well thought out transformation from man to wolf and allows the audience to see the transformation. Whereas the 1949 version, leaves it up to the audience's imagination on the transformation.

The hospital scene:

Villacreces, Wolfman Transformation and the Evolution of Filmmaking

VS.

Wolfman (2010)           Wolfman (1941)

It's been 69 years since director George Waggner made the first Wolfman movie. Technology and filmmaking have evolved ever since.  Because of this reason director Joe Johnston remade the movie. There are certainly a lot of differences between both movies, but what strikes the viewers the most is the  transformation from man to werewolf. 

In the 1941 version, you see  Larry Talbot struggling with fear, shame, and uncomfortability towards himself. He hides from people and does not know what is going on. As he removes his clothing, the frame present a change in his feet and nails, when in a different scene you see the changes in his face. the filmmakers were able to present this change by good editing. They changed his appearance frame by frame. 

On the other hand in the 2010 version of Wolfman, Lawrence Talbot has a  different reaction to the change. He fells angry, it seems as if the anger of the wolf is causing this change. You see a sense of unconfortability, but no fear. In the scene in which the doctors are examining what changes the full moon could make him have, he is angry and seeks revenge. The visual effects in the scene are made thanks to CGI. It is all computer animated. The advantage of computer animation is that you are able to see all the changes in his body, starting from his feet  to his eyes. There is detail, and the transformation is more real.

Both portray the transformation of the Wolfman using the technology that each time frame had in their power. The 1941 version could not presented more perfectly that they did. But the 2010 version has too much computer animation, which makes it look a little bit fake. 

The evolution of technology is allowing the filmmakers to do anything, including making a man go from human to werewolf. 

Slan-Wolfman Transformation

The 1941 Wolfman and the 2010 Wolfman weren't the best films I've seen but they weren't the worst.

The '41 version was very simple but it was interesting to watch. It was interesting because of the plot and the transformation of the Wolfman. The transformation in the '41 version was more mysterious and less gruesome. The transformation was more of fangs, more hair, and a larger forehead. The slow transformation techniques build up suspense and fear. Larry goes from feeling hair growth on his arms, to taking off his socks, and next thing you know a full blown werewolf. They made this werewolf more of a man beast by making him walk upright in the '41 version.





The '10 version does more of a gruesome transformation. The computer generated transformation is interesting to look at but hard to take in. Lawrence's transformation appears to be more painful. Bones are breaking and changing. His teeth are getting sharper and his muscles are growing. The '10 werewolf looks like a body builder who got a hold of some bad steroids. This werewolf has more beastly characteristics. It runs on all fours and possesses amazing strength. The computer generated werewolf is hands down a better looking werewolf.

The techniques used in both films were great. They made both look realistic. You could tell that both were not in homemade Halloween costumes. The technology in 2010 was not available in '41 but the werewolf was believable. The '41 version gave filmmakers a foundation and it has evolved ever since then. If you see the werewolves in "Underworld" or "American Werewolf" films you'll notice that they are each have their distinctive characteristics. No two werewolves are the same.

Mathey Transformation scene from the Wolfman (old and new) analysis

After watching both movies, I can officially state the fact that the transformation scene from the first movie was kind of lame. I understand that special effects didn't exist back then and that we are all used to great science fiction movies but I was not impressed at all. However, in the new Wolfman, I was completely blown away by the graphism induced. It reminded of the
transformation of the Hulk, when his clothes and shoes rip because they cannot retain the growing body parts.
In the Wolfman from 1941, the director just focus on the character's legs and took many shots after adding Yak hair each time. He also uses a grey filter to create a darker atmosphere.



In the new Wolfman, the director focuses mostly on the facial structures transformation to enhance the pain factor. We can clearly see how painful the mutation must be just by looking at his face. The first change, is the facial bones readjusting (his chin and ears get longer, his jaw grows bigger and his teeth turn to razorsharp killing machines.) The second change is the growing hair which is slowly expanding along his body. Also notice how the eyes are changing when the camera zooms in during the first transformation. The noises from his bones cracking and cloth ripping off are just horrifying and gruesome but reinforce that idea of realism. The director does not omit any details because he wants us to really believe this is real.
Apart from technological advances, the beast look very similar in both movies. Just a very hairy face with fangs even though Benicio Del Toro's make up and costume looks way more realistic thanks to synthetic ingredients. I must however point out that the transformation of Benicio del Toro in the new Wolfman is computerized and the wolf is not really the actor while in the old Wolfman, the beast really is the same actor, even though it does not look as cool.