This was the second time I’ve watched Dr. Strangelove, and I’m sure if it was the 10th time I’d still pick up something new that Kubrick has subtly put in the film. This is one of my all time favorite films for so many reasons. It’s funny, exciting, was expertly crafted, and had a very powerful and meaningful plot. Made during Cold War times, this film is terrifying in the idea that we could fall into nuclear war.

One thing I notice when watching Dr. Strangelove is that it’s in black and white, when it did not have to be. Kubrick also did this in Path’s of Glory.  Which makes me believe that Kubrick is trying to make us focus on sounds. The music was a big part of Strangelove. Every time the B52 bomber was shown, a song was playing that I’m pretty sure is called “The ants are marching on” which would mean that soldiers are like ants. Something that may go unnoticed.

There’s almost too much subtlety to cover in this film. Something not as subtle was the billboard saying “peace is our profession.” During the firefight.

I was completely fooled by Peter Sellers’ portrayal of the president. I knew previously that he played two roles, but he is very talented.

The end to this film is one of my favorite scenes in any film ever.  Now, I am a huge Simpsons fan, and I saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_p-EEJED-k

before I saw Dr. Strangelove, and when that happened in the film I was very excited. My favorite film we’ve watched so far.

I will be presenting on Auteurship from chapter 1 in UFT tomorrow in class, here are some of the points that I came across in the reading. The Auteur is the person (director) who’s influence on a project is so great that they are considered the author of it. Very commonly this is the director. And there is a lot of controversy over whether there actually is an auteur when dealing with film, as film is a very collaborative effort that draws from so many different people and creative inputs. It can be said that the writer of the script can claim auteurship as well. But what makes somebody an auteur and not just a director? Four main factors were themes, biographical details, production, and aesthetics. Very often a filmmakers personal touch contributes to whether they are the auteur or not, an example of this is Tim Burton, who’s feel can be instantly noticed when watching one of his films. But is it just about quality or quantity? Do you need more than one film, and need to have a certain style to be the auteur? Even if film is a collaborate effort, how can someone like Hitchcock, a filmmaker who oversaw every aspect of his work with extreme attention to detail, not be considered the auteur of his films? The biggest question this brought up to me was who really is a films author? Is it the director? Or is it a much more collaborative effort?

Nick Tassoni

For week three so far we’ve read Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibilty and Chapter 5 in UFT. Both of these I thought had a good class discussion that I may not have contributed to enough, so I thought I’d do so here, starting with Benjamin.

Chris and I were assigned to focus more on section VIII and IX (237,) which talked primarily about the “reproducibility” of ancient art vs. modern art. Benjamin writes that “Never before have artworks been technologically reproducible to such a degree and in such quantities as today.” Referring the fact that almost all art in modern times can be recreated. A movie is not shown once an discarded, it can go to VHS, DVD, and can be online as well. Reproduction is an incredibly important part of art now, which contrasts greatly with say, Ancient Greek art. Where works of art must embody the values of the time they were created in to form an accurate portrayal of the time, whereas film can be cataloged so easily to see the change in time. In addition to this, Benjamin writes that film can be improved in any desired way when ancient statues cannot be.  In section IX Benjamin writes about the impact photography had on art. Stating “the more fundamental question of whether the invention of photography had not transformed the entire character of art.” I think this even relates to the controlled accident in a way, as art was originally a metaphor for reality, when now it can be reality itself.

In chapter 5 of UTF, Marxism was discussed. I don’t know much about Marxism or comparative politics (I took a comparative politics course and we actually looked at Marxism a lot so that’s too bad) but I liked the connection that politics can have on the media industry. I guess a better way of saying that is it’s impressive what an impact it can have, not that I like it.

Nick Tassoni

Tykwer’s 1998 film Run Lola Run was a very enjoyable and useful film for us to watch.  There were many elements from the readings and discussion that came into play with the film and it was also a fun experience. The film uses editing very effectively to show many different things. The very fast cuts of Lola and Manni and the phone, the quick frames of the futures of the people Lola interacts This type of editing added to the rising suspense of each time Lola would run to Manni, which contrasts with the final moments of each “run” which were in slow motion. I enjoyed reading about the film in Understanding Film Theory as well, this provided more insight into the film. For example how the 180 degree line was consistently broken to make us feel somewhat lost while we followed her through the city. Editing techniques like this greatly added to the films overall feel.

There were a few other ideas in the film that I found interesting, I brought one up in class, which was the very beginning in which we saw the security guard and he said something along the lines of “90 minutes each time, the rest is just theory.” I am still confused as to why he said this, and why they chose the security guard to say this. Toby brought up something that I had noticed too, in which the first scene were we see the father and his lover the quality of the footage diminishes greatly, almost as if we are watching a soap opera, which could be what the director was going for. Another thing we touched on was the idea of Run Lola Run being a fairy tale, how her scream and touch have powers, and I never thought of this before, I had seen the film before but did not make this connection, I see this now and can notice the relations between the film and Propp’s hero theory.

I also enjoyed the use of animation in the film, I do not know why it was chosen, (the stair case, intro, and when the father comes out as animation briefly) but I enjoyed it, a creative touch to an already creative film.

Nick Tassoni

I noticed several connections in the two short films we watched and the readings we’ve had. The idea of the montage was used throughout these films. Combining images to create a new narrative. When the protagonist of At Land climbs up driftwood roots to find herself on a dining room table, crawling through vegetation and along the table, and several other possible examples utilized this effectively to move the film forward. In addition to this I recall reading about a similar idea in which the camera, while in motion, is blurred to simulate a quick pan, and in the blur is the cut that was made from some sort of tower back to the protagonist on the beach.

Many of these ideas were utilized in Meshes of the Afternoon as well. But sometimes instead of using a montage or way to cover up a change, cuts were used instead. With keys turning into knifes right on screen.

I do not know if this is a popular opinion, but I disliked both these films very much, and while I see how they connect to our discussions and readings, I found them dull and difficult to get through.

There were a few interesting themes in the film that I’ve seen so far. I enjoy the way the film is shot, which involves a lot of long takes and shots that follow the actors around for an extended period of time. This is effective in showing how fast paced sets can be while making a film. An example of this is the director quickly walking around his sets consulting with people from all different departments, we got a look into the chaos of film making there. Another theme that I noticed was that the film comments a lot on frivolous things. I understand in class it was mentioned that this film is part of french new wave, which is less flashy than other forms of film, and the points made in the film fit this description. There are very large elaborate sets and actions with hundreds of extras that seems very excessive, when filming on an actual location would have produced a very similar effect, and all characters are preoccupied with things that don’t seem too important, having mounds of butter, small props, and perfection in a take. For a film that is part of a less flashy style, this is certainly an ironic subject to cover.

Nick Tassoni