a qwriting.qc.cuny.edu blog

As we all know this are films that concentrate on movement and dream imagery. this language is use to visualize the mysteries of the mind and makes us travel on places that we don’t even know, maybe i am repeating myself with previous post about films taking us to unknown places, that the art of filmmaking makes us believe is almost real. since is influenced by the surrealism  it takes us to believe that there is meaning in every single part of our life, that there’s more than things just being objects. objects give us meaning, life and draw many aspect of the moment.

  • the best example is ballet mecanique, this film shows us how every object is important, how makes its preformance and in contributes to the world. you know what is so funny that i try to show it  to a couple of people and they felt lost and almost sick. I came to the conclusion that in order to make tghem understand the meaning of the art of film they really have to take acourse to introduce them what was like back then. everyday was an experiment and still is, even though nowadays is more digitalize. i even try to explain that this film was an experiment, opening new worlds. then i realize we are looking for things to make sense if they dont we dont like it. but what happens when you think outside the box and begin to see meaning?
December 8th, 2010 at 10:57 am | Comments & Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Tomas Gutierrez, i dont know too much about him, but i know he is succesful with his work, because in his time the cuban revolution worked out pretty well. one of the only latin countries to prevail.

but what happens in this scene that we see is a lot of info that we can pick up from. like the moment where Sergio is HARDLY CRITICIZING everything, Cuba itself, he makes fun of the country where he lives, but at the same time does it with the situation the wife is gonna go through, even talks bad about her, he doesn’t love her. he seems to treat women as objects, all the time flirting, sleeping and staying home seriously he has nothing to do, but criticize . he prefers to stay behind.

I have come to the conclusion that he stays behind because he feels better in Cuba than in an unknown world.

December 7th, 2010 at 11:10 pm | Comments & Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

This time  i want to concentrate in the introductions that Hitchcock makes everytime that he shows his work. with mystery and unexpected situations we are always curious and intereste  on his work because it takes us to the unexpected.

the way he markets himself makes himself known, recognized and even remembered so he knew how to communicate to people to be part of the fame.

I also like the fact that he was that type of directors that had it all in his head from beggining to end. in some readings he didnt have to figure much what will be next to be shown, but he had it on his head sketch, to me that seems pretty challenging. i truly believe this is part of what makes him very well known.

December 7th, 2010 at 10:52 pm | Comments & Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Ousmane Sembene, makes me proud of how a minority gets to be known for this film, that shows many of the problems of the world. Sembene is an eye opener of the reality of the colonialism, post-colonial identity. identity is a great part that plays in the scene that professor Herzog shows us. i love the dubbing, like  i mention in a comment, it takes deep inside the head of  the black girl, where we see a lot of mix feelings encounter in her inside, but dont come out until she finally gets tired of  the employers. the funny thing is that it takes her time to express herself quitetly and shows them that she is a human being that needs to be treated with respect.

the conclusion of this movie where she suicide herself show us that the voice of the conquered people is turned off and never heard, but at the end we need extreme actions to see what really went wrong.

so to me the way Sembene portrays his movie gives an execution point of how the voice is turned off, but still strong.

December 7th, 2010 at 10:46 pm | Comments & Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

Godard, the master in breaking the rules in filmmaking, one of many rebellious guy who introduces aspects of film in a new form,  the audience should be aware of the filmic process and here is when the jumps shows off. when i got to watch this movie i was impress how rough he takes us to this process of the jumps. this is the trick to make us aware of the analytical process. the exceptional direct sound from the location is a challenging situation where as some sounds are convenient some others not because the actors cant be heard, but it makes the film especial.

another thing that is interesting about this film is the actors, like Jean Paul, funny guy who always takes us out of the boredom, he is funny and a peculiar character, the guy he moves and express and talks back to actress Jean.

Especially the last scene where he gets shot, and runs sideways and he is SMOKING LOL, come on who has done that in a movie? i dont know but, it’s pretty funny. it takes out of  place.

December 7th, 2010 at 9:47 pm | Comments & Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

In my short life, I have notice that im always interest in movies that have that magic touch of fantasy and mystery , those that drive you to places that you never think of, those places where the imposible is possible and its normal such as:

  • Inception
  • Avatar
  • The Maltese Falcon
  • Pan’s Labyrinth
  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
  • Don’t Die Without telling me where you are going

la jatee is one of this movies where you can do the unthinkable, travel time like “back to the future”, la jatee gives us an insight of how still pictures can tells us a story, accompany with narration. if we take the silent out we would follow it, as a mystery movie. this film shows us how the new French Wave gives us the unexpected.

December 7th, 2010 at 8:32 pm | Comments & Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

I think pather panchali translates song of the little road, not sure though, but I wanted to talk about a little bit about some women in the film.

it was very sad for me to see how the role of the women in this film is horrible and depressing.  jealousy, envy and frustration is all over the place.

for example this lady of the next door always whining about Durga stealing the food instead of offering to the poor ones. there is lack of caring and helping that the whole film represents from the side of women. because even though the mother of Durga cares about her family, in the whole aspect is not like that. what about the auntie? poor old woman she was a heavy charge for Durga’s mother, she never wanted her to be around, always kicking her out. that doesn’t makes sense, maybe she doesn’t believe in Karma. i dont know how she had the heart to be so mean with her.

This old auntie was always singing and smiling and only the man (Durgas father) care about her, even when she went to the other man to stay, he said you can stay.  i wondered why men were less harsh in that sense. Auntie should have be respected and being take care of. even in the scene where the pebbles disappear ,auntie arrives and nobody answers her whats going on, that made me feel bad about her.

and finally Durga, she was a girl that cared a lot about almost everyone, the elders, the brother, this is shown since she is little. when she is bigger still does what she was doing before, stealing. this time  for herself like the pebbles. we also see how she dreams to have a good husband and that kind of drives her to her own death. kind of weird because right after the praying the storm appears, gets sick and dies.

in conclusion i believe poverty is what causes these women to be jealous, envy, careless and selfish, but we have Durga that makes the difference.

November 18th, 2010 at 2:48 am | Comments & Trackbacks (4) | Permalink

On this film I want to talk about the main character. Dr. miles. and some cinematography that took place on the film. Basically as we all know around the 1950s  the Cold War was in its vivid moment. The fear of uncertainty of what the future would bring because of  any nuclear attacks from the Soviet Union. To me the Director wants to represent through Dr. Miles to all of  us. At that moment everything seem to be all right when out of the sudden an attack is going to come. I believe Siegel was showing us that attack through the aliens meaning the Soviet Union and the attack of destroying the humanity, meaning us, regular people.

I remember when Dr. Miles and Becky were together wondering why all this weird situation was happening… and then he says “how precious is to be human” and it got me thinking of yes why not to stop the war that makes us look like animals and lets instead be humans that care for the well-being why to hurt why to kill why to change nature with nuclear weapons? that really touched my heart.

Something that also attracted me of the movie is the oblique angles that Siegel used to represent DANGER, suspense, invasion and fear mixed together. close ups to show madness and the music that gave us the essence of what was going on.

October 27th, 2010 at 10:37 pm | Comments & Trackbacks (1) | Permalink

Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles and released by RKO Radio Picture in 1941 is acclaimed to be one of the most influential movies in the film history. In the analysis, I will concentrate in the scene where Charlie Foster Kane and Susan Alexander Kane are back in the hotel room from the second appearance in the opera. This scene reveals a lot of tension and power. The best way to describe it is by feeling all this emotions through the filmic elements that are being used. A lot of high and low angles with a mix of high and low key light, extreme close ups, overlapping, the Baroque style and deep focus gives the scene its own life . In this analysis we will see how the arrogance exceeds the selfishness. Let’s remember that Citizen Kane was made on times after the depression and at the same time William Randolph Hearst was around, the biggest sensationalist on the yellow journalism and a bright representation of the greed, thirst of power and self-centeredness.


On the beginning of the scene we see shot reverse shot from Susan to Kane, whining about Jed Leland review in a high angle shot then it goes back to Kane to a low angle shot with a right key light that shows he is paying a little more of attention to the knocking door than the annoying Susan. Then the magical deep focus appears to shows us a kind of reality of this world where the Mise-en-scene Kane stands and approaches to the door, Susan is at the right sitting on the floor with all the newspapers. The essence of Welles was to “break the rules” show ceilings, ceilings and more ceilings when it was possible and the main idea is to emphasize the sense of reality because that’s how we (our sight) sees in real life, ceiling, wall, and floor.


Then the door is open and then it goes back to a high angle as where Susan is asking rudely “… Jed Leland…” deep focus appears again with a Baroque Style, the draperies, intensifies the bold and extravagant style, of “the rich” and most importantly the drama that is transforming the tension in the room.


The camera movement pans left, following Kane to accentuate the curiosity of the spectator(us) to see what is inside the envelope, then the tension increases where we see Susan still in a high angle shot, and then a reverse shot to a low angle shot  to Kane.This shot reverse shot, occurs very simultaneously until the end, but there are important moments where Susan becomes a severe migraine most importantly when the shot of the check is ripped off and the declaration of principles is on focus. The overlapping takes action. This is one of the results of Welles where we see the theatrical influence in his experience. As mention before this is breaking the rules.


There is more of shot reverse shot and the biggest momentum is when Susan decides to stop singing, then we go back to the low angle shot to Kane says “you will continue with your singing Susan, I DON’T PROPOSE TO HAVE MYSELF RIDICULOUS” incredible astonishing. In this scene we can see how arrogant and absurd Kane could be. Welles wants to show how a wealthy man doesn’t care much of what the wife wants or others want, but to make sure he prevails in anything he does, it has to be done his way or nothing will be perfect. He doesn’t want to be humiliated, but he wants to humiliate isn’t that something?


This brings us back to William Randolph Hearst as where he wanted to ban coverage of film Citizen Kane in his papers and delayed the release of the film. Even money was offered to RKO to destroy the negative.


Then we see Susan in a straight angle, extreme close up, shot reverse shot to Kane in a low angle shot and then he exploits, the camera tracks out and this is to show that Kane is going towards Susan.This shot is the most effective one in lighting, first we see an extreme close up into Susan from a high angle and the huge shadow approaching, the effect of low key light demonstrates a monster approximating. This monster wants to impose his rules; hostility is surrounding Susan because she moves back down. All these effect show how a dictator wants to impose his egocentric believe and lower down the weak and most importantly to show who has the power.


In conclusion, Welles is well known for breaking the rules in film. He used theatrical effects like overlapping to show arguments. Deep focus with a lot of scenic ceilings to makes us feel a sense of reality. Low and high angles to show who the dictator was and who was powerless. A mix of lights , but especially the low key light to demonstrate the same reason as before who has the power, most importantly in those times (1941) William Randolph Hearst was a great example of the Citizen Kane in the times of depression.


October 22nd, 2010 at 5:03 am | Comments & Trackbacks (2) | Permalink

I was going through my notes and i noticed the scene of the grapefruit. everyone has to remember this one because it was very shocking how the anger of this gangster for being used by the woman makes him throw the fruit to her.

the grapefruit shows how a gangster felt powerless.

sometimes we do that , we want to hit or throw stuff to take our anger out because we use powerless especially the man.

now from a woman point of view , the audience will take it as she looked for it from others it will be more like he didn’t have the right to do that no matter what. but then we got to remind ourselves he was married.

so was it right or wrong to throw the grapefruit?

I will say no, but she was behaving in the wrong way. LOL he was used and raped, to me that’s a funny point of view.

October 20th, 2010 at 1:47 am | Comments & Trackbacks (2) | Permalink