The role of the “sissy” in film in the 20’s and 30’s was very interesting. Sissies were put into films just for comic relief it seemed. The directors made the sissies very dramatic and super flamboyant. I think they did this to make the sissy seem very out of place. He was meant to be viewed as weird and “not normal”. The introduction of Hollywood Censorship was also interesting. Directors did not use the sissy in the same humorous blatant matter. Directors had to rely on creativity to use a sissy in the 40’s and 50’s but the sissy was not the typical one that viewers were used to in the 20’s and 30’s. They were dark and villainous. It is interesting because in both cases the sissy is portrayed very different than the other characters in the film. The early sissy was very dramatic and flamboyant and overly peppy, while the later sissy was more monotone and viewed as creepy. Rather than flamboyant, the new sissy played a dark role. It is interesting how after rules changed, the sissy was differently played. Although they were played completely opposite of each other, the overall concept of the sissy not fitting in and being noticeably weird/different was a common trait.

I thought it was very interesting how the men in this said they learned how to do their hair, makeup, dress, and behave through the women in movies. I also thought it was very interesting that one of the gay actors said that even though the way the gay community was portrayed in movies was negative, he would rather have some sort of portrayal rather than nothing.

I went through several clips of the movie The Celluloid Closet. The movie depicts how the characterization of homosexuals in movies had made an impression on the general audience on how homosexuals actually behave. Armistead Maupin in the movie said that “I have always thought sex with another men would mean having to commit suicide.And I got that impression from the movies.”

The movie implies that  gays characters were depicted as a funny character to be laughed upon in 1920’s.However in 1950’s and later, homosexual characters were generally referred to as cold blooded villains. This made me think of what may be the reason such a big transformation was made.

Also, I felt that this may be connected to how JFK movie alleged gays to be conspirators in Kennedy assassination.

I found it very interesting in The Celluloid Closet that people kept discussing the realism of films and how they portrayed real life occurrence/ how they affected the way people acted. Tony Curtis said, “Cary Grant taught me hoe to treat a lady, how to dress for dinner..” and a female screenwriter goes on to say that life in Hollywood was “more like the movies than you could ever dream.” Movies effect the way people view certain  things and the way people develop opinions or stereotypes.  Gay and lesbian characters were portrayed as “prissy” and used to create comedy. Back in the early/mid 20th centuries a director could count on a gay character to make an audience laugh. This influenced the way people saw gay men and women in real life. They judged them and felt they were a source of comedy, and were not to be accept seriously.

Movies are can be such a powerful tool without it intending to be.

In class we discussed alternative story lines; breaking away from linearity through flashbacks or flash forwards. In Lone Scherfig’s romance One Day (2011) Emma and Dexter meet the night of their college graduation and the film cuts to the same date of the following year showing their buddying friendship and does so for 15 years as the two grow less close. We follow the two individual stories year after year as they both undergo life altering changes. The two separated lovers are finally able to make a relationship work and get married. The film jumps to the final year where unfortunately Emma is killed in a car accident. The film cuts from a a lonely Dexter back to the first day they met and shows everything that happened that day that they did not show the viewer before. I felt this was a really good example of breaking linearity. This break from linearity made the movie so powerful and touching because to the viewer, at that point, Emma was a ghost of sorts.

After watching the short film the Sandman in class, it reminded me of my favorite short film the Paperman.

Like the Sandman,  there is a lot of added non diegetic sound. It opens with the train rumbling by, which is an added sound, and the piece of paper flying by which was created to fit into the animation. The backround music goes along with the action in the film and fits with it. It makes the audience sad and then happy. Other added sound is the train bells, backround intruments,street noise, running. It does not have any words which makes it unique and fun to watch. It is a romantic and silly short film. I recommend it to all audiences.

I noticed that in Bride and Prejudice there is a similar scene of Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett coming together in rain. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Martin Henderson play it in Bride and Prejudice while Kiera Knightley and Matt Mcfadyen play it in Pride and Prejudice. The bollywood version uses the rain scene to show her change and her new love for Darcy. She realizes she likes him and not the other guy who ends up being a bad guy. She sings in the rain but it is a quick clip. It being so short makes this scene less drama filled and romantic. It is interesting that the filmmaker made this scene so short because it is an important moment for character development and moving the plot along.

Unlike the bollywood version, the film Pride and Prejudice (Wright, 2005), the rain scene is longer making it more intense and emotional. It is in England ands shows the beautiful landscape behind and the characters which is more relatable to the Jane Austin novel. In the Bride and Prejudice, there is a different adaptation and the setting is in India and California, much different than the book.

Going back to the scene in Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth ran away and see’s Darcy, it is a long moment and intense moment. They fight and make up. This scene is more dramatic because of the rain and how it is cut showing Darcy and Elizabeth back and forth. There is much more romance and feeling to it. It brings the audience in the moment. I liked this adaptation of the moment better than in Bride and Prejudice because it is more romantic and drawn out.

The use of color in Gurinder Chadha’s film Bride and Prejudice was beautifully done. This specific element of mise-en-scène gave greater meanings to certain scenes in the movie.

The first example is how every time we were in India everyone was always dressed in very bright colors and the sun was always shinning. While in America, people were dressed in duller attire. I think the purpose of these color contrasts was to show that when in America the main characters, who are from India originally, saw it as a foreign place that was not their home and one that they did not wish to move to like Lalita’s friend.

The color worn by the characters were also used to express their moods. For example, Lalita wore a white gown to her friends wedding in America. In America, white is seen as a color of purity where in India it is seen as a color of mourning. Lalita wears the color white to show that she is sad after William appears to have a girlfriend.

It is amazing how something as simple as colors can give a different meaning to a movie.

http://nofilmschool.com/2012/09/reinventing-the-movie-musical-recording-live-performances-with-les-miserables

I found this article about how sound was recorded for Les Miserables, the 2012 musical starring Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Russell Crowe (the best part of the article is the video that it features interviews with the cast discussing what the process of singing live was).

I think that it is interesting to compare a musical film like Les Miserables to Bride and Prejudice, not only to compare style and production values, but also to see how the songs were recorded and featured in the film. In Bride and Prejudice, all of the songs were pre-recorded and laid over the visual footage of the film, so the actors had to mime what they were “singing” on film while shooting. Even though that makes the sound a little more polished, the visuals can get a little funky when the lyrics don’t always sync up perfectly with the actor’s lips (it can occasionally look a little cheesy).

On the other hand, Les Miserables goes for somewhat of a more natural, Broadway-style approach by having the actor’s sing live, and while this is pretty interesting, it also sets up enormous risks and imperfections in the performances. The voices and music may not sound as impeccable as they would in a recording studio, but maybe that is what the film was going for. Either way, their decision to use live-footage of the singers was hit-or-miss with audience members, some who found it a fantastic divergence from traditional musical styles, while others found it too distracting. It is an interesting take on making a musical regardless and it would be interesting to see if more movies will take this approach in the future.

I thought it was really interesting how they talked about how the music in musicals play a vital role to help the viewer bring the two characters together. In musicals, it almost seems like the actual music plays a character. It unifies and brings two very different characters together. I don’t typically watch musicals, but in the few that I have watched I have noticed that it can start off with two different characters and shows them individually, but the music these two characters sing bring them together. It makes to seemingly opposites seem similar. I think music plays a very key role in movies and loved the explanation and examples in this article.