1. Gitai’s position on objectivity is Gitai does not believe in objectivity, and does not make objective images. Camper finds interesting in how Gitai transitions from and “objective” to “subjective” viewpoint in Kippur, by making the soldiers subjective, like the news, they have perceptions of vividness, a presence, that encourages the viewer to accept them as the truth.
2. Examples Camper uses to support his claim are: a scene at the base while men are talking, in a long take; conversation between pilot and doctor when the viewer finds out the war is happening, shot in a distant shot; and when the viewer finds out about Klauzner’s mom, that is also shot in a long take.
3. The opening scene (and matching closing scene) divided critics by: some feel that the scene does not establish anything-making it not worthwhile to use in the film, others feel that the mix of colors and chaotic reappears throughout the film and pulls it all together by mixing colors of both flags (Israeli & Arab national) makes implied argument for peace.
4. Significant changes that took place in Israel after the War of Independence was the productive focus towards rapid industrialization, which in return changed the Israel sociopolitical structure. The consequences of the “statist policy” was it led to the political oppression of opposing factions, it changed to a quasi-socialist formation. ( I am not sure what this means). Foreign relations were changed with Egypt, they were now enemies. Hegemony means leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others(from Webster dictionary).
5. Zionism- was a movement to protect the Jewish nation-Israel. Sabra is Israeli soldier fighting for the states independence, a native through ethnically mixed ‘Jew divorced’. The Sabra woman “metonymically represent the future of the state” when the couple kisses, because the woman falls in love with someone she should not fall in love with, the enemy, and she is a solider, but she puts all of that aside for love, meaning people should put aside their feelings of hatred, and look forward to the future.
6. I think the significance of having a Sabra and diasporic characters defending Hill 24, is the viewer gets to see each side defend the Hill, taping into the characters shoes, having passion for both sides, can open up the issue in war, to what side is in the right, despite what they had thought before, when a filmmaker can make war human, by showing both sides, that is when people think about what happened there, and is war worth it for the outcome.
7. The period following the Six-Day-War was different from War of Independence because there was no true set in the stone cease fire, this in turn led to guerrilla and terrorist attacks for years to follow.
8. I am not sure of the answer, but I think it may be in Siege the beginning of the film opened with a documentary and what followed it was fiction, making; I have no clue.
9. It is true dealing with the Yom Kippur War, because it shows heavy causalities on Israel side, the price paid in human lives was unprecedented for Israelis.
10. Double binded notion of persecution, directors lives are used in films themselves, using recurring shots, like battlefields shots, etc.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Reading Response 8
I can't find Bordwells reading on the reserve cite
1. ?
2. ?
Valentina Vitali
1. Vitali answers her own question, “if the reviews of Hou’s film didn’t sell Hou’s films, what” actually sold his films were the production, distribution, and exhibition of his films, due to what was available locally.
2. Three broad trends identified by Vitali in how Hou’s films were discussed in reviews and articles are: all-pervading focus on the character; contemporary political context as the key to the films; and rare historical conditions shaping the films; and the use of his long shots.
3. The point Vitali makes by using Oliva Assayas article is that Hou’s films are seen to be a part of Taiwanese ‘Nouvelle Vague’ just as in Oliva’s article, which describes the effects of American pressure on Taiwanese society.
Paul Willemen
1. Willemen does not love Hou’s film for their complexity because he feels there is no connection between complexity and quality; he has learned this from teaching filmmakers and photographers.
2. Willemen does not love the films of Hou because of their Taiwanness, he doesn’t appreciate the films telling him or showing Taiwanese identity and feels this pushes you into a box, and that is very restrictive.
3. Willemen does not love the films of Hou, because Hou is a world cinema auteur, he feels the notion of autorship is supposed to make him pay attention to Hou’s films rather than someone else’s who is not an auteur.
4. The idea of complexity, the general question Willemen believes that Hou’s film try to answer is how do we, can we, live with the wirght of history here, on the particular patch of geo-temporal space that we inhabit.
5. Willemen’s critique of critical approaches that emphasize Chineseness in Hou’s work is Hou deals with direct aspects of traditional Chinese aesthetics, and deals with the importance of Chinese philosophy and pictorial traditions.
1. ?
2. ?
Valentina Vitali
1. Vitali answers her own question, “if the reviews of Hou’s film didn’t sell Hou’s films, what” actually sold his films were the production, distribution, and exhibition of his films, due to what was available locally.
2. Three broad trends identified by Vitali in how Hou’s films were discussed in reviews and articles are: all-pervading focus on the character; contemporary political context as the key to the films; and rare historical conditions shaping the films; and the use of his long shots.
3. The point Vitali makes by using Oliva Assayas article is that Hou’s films are seen to be a part of Taiwanese ‘Nouvelle Vague’ just as in Oliva’s article, which describes the effects of American pressure on Taiwanese society.
Paul Willemen
1. Willemen does not love Hou’s film for their complexity because he feels there is no connection between complexity and quality; he has learned this from teaching filmmakers and photographers.
2. Willemen does not love the films of Hou because of their Taiwanness, he doesn’t appreciate the films telling him or showing Taiwanese identity and feels this pushes you into a box, and that is very restrictive.
3. Willemen does not love the films of Hou, because Hou is a world cinema auteur, he feels the notion of autorship is supposed to make him pay attention to Hou’s films rather than someone else’s who is not an auteur.
4. The idea of complexity, the general question Willemen believes that Hou’s film try to answer is how do we, can we, live with the wirght of history here, on the particular patch of geo-temporal space that we inhabit.
5. Willemen’s critique of critical approaches that emphasize Chineseness in Hou’s work is Hou deals with direct aspects of traditional Chinese aesthetics, and deals with the importance of Chinese philosophy and pictorial traditions.
Reading Response 7
Reading response 7
Questions for Monday, October 19
1. Avoiding cut and paste, briefly describe in your own words what the February 28 Incident was.
The Feb incident was a reaction from people when the police beat a woman up the day before for selling smuggled cigarettes. February 28, martial law was declared in the street of Taipei, troops shot out the crowd, some people were executed and others were missing.
2. Again, avoiding cut and paste, briefly explain in your own words the controversy around the treatment of the February 28 Incident in City of Sadness.
The controversy around the treatment of the February 28 incident was the rewriting of what happened that day. The government backed their actions of the riot claiming it was the fight against communism. There were many contradictions depending on who wrote the report on what happened that day.
3. Consider the following quote from p. 218: “By denying us a link to the previous scene through either character-based causality (goals, appointments, deadlines) or voice-over explanation, he lets the new locale register initially as a space, not a container or background for well defined narrative action. We simply watch what’s happening (or not happening) within the frame, taking in the vastness of a landscape or the details of an interior without yet knowing how it links to a larger story rhythm. Only at length—sometimes quite late in the scene—when characters broach their projects or the voice-over explains what has occurred since the last scene do we understand what is transpiring here. In the meantime we have been obliged to study the shot itself.” How does this description of Hou’s narration relate to your experience watching A Time to Live and a Time to Die?
This description relates to my own, I agree with you don’t really understand what is going on until the next scene, or it is explained to you. Sometimes you are watching, and just wondering what is actually happening then it is explained to you, you just have to sit and enjoy the ride.
Questions for Monday, October 19
1. Avoiding cut and paste, briefly describe in your own words what the February 28 Incident was.
The Feb incident was a reaction from people when the police beat a woman up the day before for selling smuggled cigarettes. February 28, martial law was declared in the street of Taipei, troops shot out the crowd, some people were executed and others were missing.
2. Again, avoiding cut and paste, briefly explain in your own words the controversy around the treatment of the February 28 Incident in City of Sadness.
The controversy around the treatment of the February 28 incident was the rewriting of what happened that day. The government backed their actions of the riot claiming it was the fight against communism. There were many contradictions depending on who wrote the report on what happened that day.
3. Consider the following quote from p. 218: “By denying us a link to the previous scene through either character-based causality (goals, appointments, deadlines) or voice-over explanation, he lets the new locale register initially as a space, not a container or background for well defined narrative action. We simply watch what’s happening (or not happening) within the frame, taking in the vastness of a landscape or the details of an interior without yet knowing how it links to a larger story rhythm. Only at length—sometimes quite late in the scene—when characters broach their projects or the voice-over explains what has occurred since the last scene do we understand what is transpiring here. In the meantime we have been obliged to study the shot itself.” How does this description of Hou’s narration relate to your experience watching A Time to Live and a Time to Die?
This description relates to my own, I agree with you don’t really understand what is going on until the next scene, or it is explained to you. Sometimes you are watching, and just wondering what is actually happening then it is explained to you, you just have to sit and enjoy the ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)