Back
Cinema School Log
September, 2003
Wednesday, September 3rd - Trip down was much easier today, for some reason. The freeway work is no problem. And Vermont Avenue was a lot better this time. And the class was even more interesting that yesterday. Same teacher, same room. But the subject this time is the History of Documentary Film. And he didn't go through all the stuff he went over last night, so it was pretty interesting for the whole class. He started out by going over the course outline, and discussing the films we were going to watch and discuss. Some very interesting stuff, indeed. Especially notable are Riefenstahl's Triumph des Willens, Flaherty's Nanook of the North, Huston's World War Two films (San Pietro and Let There Be Light), and a couple of Capra's Why We Fight series. There is also going to be a documentary about Mstislav Rostropovich's return to Russia. And, of course, a bunch of political stuff, all somewhere between slightly and drastically skewed to the left. Great! However, I was pleasantly surprised to not that Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine was absent. So at least I won't have to worry about fighting that battle. Mostly of the class, we spent discussing what a documentary is. Or make that discussing why it is almost impossible to say what a documentary actually is. It's funny. Mostly people would probably think of them as non-fiction films with an educational slant, and ones that often revolve around social issues or natural phenomena. However, about the only part of that definition that really seems to fit completely is slant. And there's plenty of that. Riefenstahl is an example; Triumph of the Will is a propaganda piece and nothing more. Beautifully shot, maybe. Chillingly effective, even. But pure propaganda. (Moore is also a perfect example. Most of his work isn't even non-fiction.) So, I look forward to objecting to almost everything anyone says about the political and social films. Good times. Once this discussion was over, we actually got to watch some films. Including the Lumi�re brothers short film, Workers Leaving a Factory. It is widely viewed as the first video ever made. Very interesting stuff. We worked our way through the 1890s, and ended up all the way in 1919. The last thing we watched was a 3 minute collage of shots from a visit to John Burroughs, the famous naturalist. And it was very interesting to contrast that with the shots from the Lumi�re films. Simply being able to reproduce motion on screen was no longer enough to capture people's imaginations. So, we were able to see the first primitive examples of the use of camera angles to create interest, close-ups, telephoto lenses, and even zooming. All in all, a very interesting couple of hours. I expect many more. (I also met a fellow named Alex who used to write for the Wall Street Journal. He was fascinating. Dropped his job in New York, and came out to California just to study this stuff. Doesn't even have an apartment yet; currently, he is living out of a hotel. There are tons of interesting people here!)
Thursday, September 4th - OK! Now we're really starting to have fun. Today was very exciting indeed, for several reasons. The first one was that I found out my 5:00-10:30 class is actually a 6:00-9:00 class. The other time is all lab time. (I'm sure there will be times I need to be down there from 5:00-10:30, but to have my last day of class suddenly be my shortest one instead of the longest one was really nice.) There were a lot of people for this class; mostly because they combine the two separate sections from time to time, especially early on in the semester. So, there were two instructors: Vaughn Obern (a tall, tired and quiet looking man who teaches my section and is also the head of the Cinema Department), and Jonathan Kuntz, (a feisty, energetic little guy who teaches the other section and also did nearly all of the talking). I was concerned about this at first, because I had picked Professor Obern because of our e-mail correspondence when I was trying to decide if this attempt was feasible. And now it was starting to look like he was the silent-partner type. But, towards the end of the evening he started to speak up. And he's sharp as a tack. No doubt about that. They are both very knowledgeable, although Kuntz seems to focus a little more on the visual stuff, and Obern on the practical considerations. So it should be a good combo. This class is also going to be the only real homework class. And there will be quite a lot of that. We make 3 short films; the first one is a single role - 3 minutes and 20 seconds - and the others are both about 5 minutes, I think. Today we talked almost exclusively about the first role. It's made up of 16 separate shots, in a specific order, with very little camera movement, and with an emphasis on focus and proper exposure. There is a simple pan, a pan with a moving object, a tilt up, a tilt down, zoom, several different shots of three dimensional objects from several different angles, and a couple of shots of people. Plus, we need to do slates between each shot, and keep a shot list with descriptions. It doesn't seem hard; both professors said that it shouldn't take more than about an hour to get all the shots. And I already know where I want to do almost all of them. Maybe I should see if my camera actually works first. But now I'm going to actually be doing something. Talking about films is fun. But that's not a reason to go to film school. This class is.
Monday, September 8th - Today was the first meeting for Cinema 1. It was supposed to be the first class I had, but Labor Day moved it back a week. So, I got my first look today. And it's going to be a good one. It's taught by a lady wearing one of those Brittany Spears mics, but I'm not going to let that bother me. The class itself is going to be very technical; lots of discussions of things like shutter speeds, and lighting, and editing procedures. This time around, she spends nearly all of the class discussing the differences between film and video. I am reminded once again of how much better film is than video, and how much work would still be required to make DV as attractive as film. For example, the resolution for most video cameras is 640 x 480. And even the cameras that Lucas used for Attack of the Clones were only about 1000 x 1800. But 35mm film is 3000 x 4000. So it's going to be hard to argue with that kind of ability, if the visuals mean anything to you. (Yay! I knew I was a film person at heart. I don't care how much easier and cheaper DV is; it just feels like cheating. And if you can't really get the same results, that gives me a legitimate reason for not liking it. Not that I needed one.) She also spends quite a bit of time on the differences between shooting with a single camera as opposed to shooting with multiple cameras, which is often the difference between major motion pictures and most live TV stuff. Basically, film is much more meticulous, which I knew already. But it was very interesting to see all the differences. At the end of class, she showed us some examples of student films made by previous Cinema 2 students. That was a little intimidating. There was some good stuff there, and I hope I can come up with that kind of thing. After the shot reel we need for September 25th, we'll have to do a chase scene. I need to start thinking of ways to do a slow chase. I really don't like the ones we saw today. Although they are technically superior to anything I had in my head, they are very, very fast paced, and very choppy. I hate that. At the end of this class, I was once again made aware of what is actually expected from community college students, even ones in a "serious program" like LACC's Cinema Department. For example, we have 3 exams. They are multiple choice questions. They are not cumulative. And, Professor Varner puts exam preparation sheets on her website that tell you exactly what you need to know. The sheets even give you the page number where you would find that information. As long as I can make the films, homework and exams will not be a problem.
Tuesday, September 9th - The second meeting of our class on the history of narrative film was much more interesting than the first; mostly because we had eliminated all the administrative aspects of the class last time. Plus, Stempel showed us a lot of old films, starting with stuff from Edison�s Black Maria studio. Very interesting to note how much early films were influenced by stage productions, especially vaudeville. There was no idea of moving the camera, or even of telling a story; the novelty of the motion itself was enough. They also tended to be very slapstick. No one was taking any of this seriously. Then, we watched Melies A Trip to the Moon, considered one of the very first narrative films ever made. Still very much of a slapstick production, but with much more variety. And, a plot. Melies is also the film maker we have seen who uses any complicated editing techniques. Up to this time, all effects were achieved simply by stopping the camera and then moving the performers around. Melies uses dissolves, a primitive zoom (although he does it by moving the device closer to the camera, not the other way around), some animation, and some very fantastic backdrops. Then we watched The Great Train Robbery, by Edwin S. Porter. Finally, a non-slapstick film! And one with different camera shots! Not everything is at right angles. And there are even some pans, some matte shots, and a shot that has a complex, multi-level background. Porter�s inside shots are still incredibly stage-like. But his exterior stuff is much better. Progress is definitely being made. An interesting note: neither Melies nor Porter really built on their own ideas. Its almost as though a person was allowed only one innovation. But Porter and his inovation did have a major hand in D.W. Griffith�s training, and Griffiths was the creator of modern-style cinema. We finished off the evening by watching The Charge of the Light Brigade, a �historical drama� based on Tennyson�s poem. It was interesting because of its scale (which was considerable compared to the things we had been seeing), its use of titles, and its all-around story-telling drabness. Visually, there was some very fine stuff. But there was still definitely a misunderstanding of the power of the medium. Scenes are still pretty much all a single shot; no close-ups; and hence there are no real characters. It seems almost sterile. But that is all about to change, with the introduction of D.W. Griffith and his film Intolerance. (Or so Stempel says.)
Wednesday, September 10th - Second night of Documentary Film. Spent most of class time discussing Robert Flaherty and John Grierson, the fathers of documentary film. Boy, were they different. Flaherty, probably most famous for Nanook of the North (which we watched), was obsessed with the history of fading cultures. In fact, he staged most of the shots in Nanook of the North, and spent most of the money given to him for the production of the film on �authentic clothing� that the Inuit were no longer using. This was a trend that he would repeat in his later films, appartenly. In fact, it was the chief point of descent between Grierson and Flaherty in years to come. Grierson was focused on solving (or exposing) social problems; he was essentially a Marxist. And he felt that Flaherty, who was focused on preserving lost cultures for humanity, was a romantic who was living in the past. And that he needed to start making films that mobilized people to change things. But despite its dubious authenticity and its �romanticized, backwards thinking,� Nanook was very powerful, even in these modern times. Flaherty did an amazing job of showing the bleakness of the environment up there, and also an amazing job of showing how happy Nanook and his family was, despite their hardships. And there is another interesting effect that he brings about, again through showing the hardships of the life there: there is some pretty barbaric stuff that happens. Let�s just say that no one worried about cooking stuff, and it would have been lousy to be a dog. But, because of the desperateness of the situation, it doesn�t seem uncivilized at all; everything seems so removed from civilization already. But it is primarily a story driven film. Song of Ceylon, however, a British documentary produced by John Grierson, was very, very different. The first difference was the use of sound. (It was made nearly 12 years after Nanoonk of the North.) And it had a definite political message. But the biggest difference was that it was far more visual, and far more abstract. Rather than following a specific individual, it shows a slice of life on the island of Ceylon, or Sri Lanka. Although the film was commissioned as an advertisement for the Ceylon Tea Company, it really comes down pretty hard on them. The film is in four parts. The first two deal with the religion, or mysticism, of the island�s inhabitants. The second and third parts show the �violent upheaval� caused by the insertion of industrial progress into the peaceful Sri Lankan economy. The Tea Company was furious when the film was completed, but it was a huge success. It is a beautiful, beautiful film, with some amazing visual effects that had probably never really been seen before this time. And, it has a compelling message. Whether the message is true or not is another story. But you can certainly see the ability of the medium to persuade. And the abstract, visual style seems to be more effective in this area than Flaherty�s style. I�ll be interested to see if this stays true throughout the class.
Thursday, September 11th - Another class in practical film making. Again, both sections met together, and we went through the two-headed teacher routine. It�s really strange; Professor Kuntz talks constantly and says a ton of interesting stuff. But then Professor Obern speaks up, and he provides far more practical information in an incredibly short time. Very interesting contrasts in style and knowledge. (Kuntz seems much more speculative, and Obern seems more practical.) Anyway, we spent nearly all of class discussing the features on most Super 8 Cameras. And I found out that my camera is rather unique. It can�t be focused. I�m not sure that�s a good thing. But Kuntz said that if I don�t have a focus, I should still be fine. I just need to make sure and film everything outside in the sun, and probably use black-and-white film. So, for at least the first two projects, I think I�ll be fine. But my last project is going to be inside, so I might need to see if I can find another camera. Plus, I would really like to use color for that one. I also spend a fair amount of time talking to Alex about his project, and thinking about mine, since I got down there about an hour early. (I was going to try and get my first test roll of film developed, but I couldn�t find the exit I needed. I�ll do it on Monday, hopefully.) We also spent quite a bit of time talking about tripods, and Obern showed us one of the cleverest things I have ever seen. To help steady hand-held shots without a tripod, he takes a chain, and an eye-bolt. He attaches them together, and fastens the camera to the chain with the eye-colt. Then, he stands on the end of the chain, and pulls up with the camera. That keeps everything steady. I was amazed by that. Class was pretty short, though, so I got home pretty early. My first full week. I�m pretty sure I can do this now.
Monday, September 15th - I dropped off my first roll of Super 8 Film at Yale�s in North Hollywood. Very good experience. I�m starting to think that lots of people in the industry are very nice. (The lady at Eastman-Kodak was great, too. Maybe just the people trying to get into the industry are jerks. And the producers, of course.) OK. More Cinema One. This class is going to be a real mix. There are a lot more working types here; people that know a lot of technical stuff about video equipment, about DV, and about telecine and the like. And I�m not exactly sure what effect that has on the class. We do spend a lot more time talking about the technical aspects of whatever Joni Varner is lecturing on that particular night, and that�s not always good. But I�m of two minds about the class anyway. Half the time, she is talking about film, and I love it. The other half the time, she is talking about video. And that interesting, in its own way, but I have no interest in doing anything with it. (Maybe with DV, if expenses absolutely dictate that; but it would never be my first choice. I stand firmly against the idea that everything can be fixed in postproduction. And I�m going to do whatever I can to make sure that I don�t take that route. And since video has very much that feel to me, I�m not interested.) We did spend quite some time talking about all the different film formats, though. That was very interesting. Although she never really answered my question about why people don�t make cameras that run horizontally instead of vertically. Oh well. So, I think there�s gonna be a ton of info in this class, but it won�t be totally interesting all the time; especially not when the technophiles go off. Oh. One other thing. She does a review in class before the exams. Wow. I wonder why they even have exams. We also watched a couple more student films. I�m pretty sure I can make these. At least story-wise, there isn�t that much there. Except for a lot of extreme close-ups to show that people are tortured souls. And as much suggestive material as possible. Sheesh.
Tuesday, September 16th - We spent today's entire Cinema 3 class discussing and watching the films of D.W. Griffith. He was the father of modern film techniques, even though he made most of his films from 1910-1925, and was the first person to really use close-ups of any kind, use wide shots to establish location, cuts back and forth between shots in the same scene, and modern-style editing. He is probably most famous for the film Birth of a Nation, which totally revolutionized the American film landscape...and quite a bit of the American political landscape as well. He was from Kentucky, and the son of a Confederate officer. And Birth of a Nation is about the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction. And it is very, very racist. Klu Klux Klansmen are the heroes. The country was in an uproar when it was released. They loved it in the South. And in the North, there were riots. But Griffith made a ton of money from the film, and began work on his next feature, which he named Intolerance. In it, he hoped to weave together four separate story lines from four different time periods: the life of Christ, the fall of Babylon, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, and a story about the lives of the working class in modern times. And I would have to say that the film is a spectacular, noble, complex, prophetic failure. Finally, the four-pronged story simply does not work. The theme of intolerance is meant to tie everything together, and the story of Christ's death and the Huguenot massacre certainly seem to present those themes. But those two stories get badly truncated in favor of the Babylonian and modern day stories. (Griffith constructed legendary sets for his Babylonian shots; they were simply huge, even by today's standards. And he obviously is very attached to them, which probably has a serious impact on how much we get to see them.) Now the shortening of the two lesser stories wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Except for the fact that neither of the two remaining threads deals with the issues of intolerance particularly well. And so Griffith really loses the common theme that he needs to tie the four stories together. (After the film was released, and was a failure, Griffith attempted to make back some of his costs by cutting the Babylonian story and the modern one into their own separate films. It�s easy to see that this might work. Which further serves to point to his failure in connecting the themes.) The most interesting story, at least in my mind, was the Huguenot story. Although I knew exactly what was going to happen, Griffith really does have a knack for emotional scenes. In fact, he is often credited as the first director that really attempted to get more out of his actors. All in all, a very interesting night, although there was much less time to discuss things than I would have liked. Stempel said that: "All things can be said of Intolerance, and a strong case can be made for the opposite view of everything that is said." A very complex film, and one which gives you an idea of the possibilities in the medium, whether it realizes them all or not.
Wednesday, September 17th - Hmmm. I�m starting to get a strange feeling about Cinema 4. I had originally thought that Stempel was a liberal. Now I�m not so sure. He seems to be pretty much his own breed. But he�s a lot fairer then I would have thought. The students, however, are a totally different story. They are even more left leaning than I would have thought. So next week, where we tackle Leni Riefenstahl�s Triumph of the Will is going to be very, very interesting. I hope it turns out a lot better than I expect, but I�m not real hopeful right now. I don�t think she�s going to be allowed to be duped by Hitler, just as others were duped by her film. I think she is going to be viewed as a monster who only wanted to kill as many Jews as possible; that�s pretty inaccurate, and I think Stempel is going to resist it strongly. But we�ll see. There are several gentlemen of color in the class who are anxious to discuss the civil rights aspects of everything we see. Even the films about English night mail trains. And they�re gonna be very hostile to her. There are also a fair number of foreign students from Easter Europe, though. They seem to be less hostile. Its going to be interesting to watch, but I doubt its going to be very much fun. Too polarized. Speaking of English night mail trains, we started off class by watching Night Mail, from Basil Wright and Harry Watt. Produced by John Grierson, it�s a film that is meant to show what goes on during a typical night mail run from Southern England to Scotland. It was produced by Grierson and his cronies to help bolster British spirit; to convince them that everything was going well; that the English Government was working hard even while everyone was asleep. And it�s a nice advertisement piece. We discussed the fact that a lot of it was shot while the train was not actually moving, and Stempel got to quote his favorite Robert Flaherty line again: �Sometimes you have to lie to tell the truth.� We also discussed the fact that it�s very much a �process� film, as so many documentaries are. And how that influences what is shown in the film. I wanted to discuss the artistic difference between this film, (created by Basil Wright in conjunction with another director), and The Song of Ceylon, which was just Basil Wright, and was much more beautiful. But only Stempel wanted to talk about that. So we discussed it during the break. Then we moved on to in American documentary about the Mississippi River. Its called The River, was created by Pare Lorentz (�The American Grierson�), and is the documentary Walt Whitman would have written if he had been involved with films. And if he had been anxious to see the Tennessee River Valley covered by water. The narration is really wonderful, as is the structure of the film overall. A perfect example of how films can be arranged to convince you of things that you would not believe if they were shown in a slightly different order. It is also, in Stempel�s words, the �best example of the Voice of God narration that we will ever see.� But the real highlight of the evening was the second half of Olympia, produced and directed by Leni Riefenstahl herself. It�s an amazing film; a testament to the power and beauty of amateur athletics. And it is also the basis for pretty much every sporting event coverage since. Really, really amazing stuff. Riefenstahl wanted to make a film that wasn�t just a documentary, but a work of art as well. And she really succeeded. Several sequences are simply spell-binding, particularly the male diving at the very end of the film. The steeplechase stuff is also wonderful, although Stempel assured me that Riefenstahl actually had no sense of humor. There are a few more naked men than I would have included myself, but aside from that, it is amazing. (The male nudity is actually very interesting, because it is the only indication in the entire film that she is an advocate of the sort of Arian Master Race art and cinema that Hitler promoted in the coming years. But I still could definitely have done without seeing it.) All in all, a most instructive evening. I just hope I survive the next class. WWII is my favorite war, but I might just lie low on this one.
Thursday, September 18th - My school day started off with a trip to Yale�s in North Hollywood to pick up the test roll of film I shot on my e-Bay Super 8 camera. Then, I headed over to the Eastman-Kodak place to pick up 3 more undeveloped rolls. (That way, I have a backup for my Project #1 reel I plan to shoot on Saturday. And, if I don�t use them, I can always save them for Project #2.) Got to LACC pretty early, so I spent about 45 minutes sitting around and planning out my Saturday shots. Very short Cinema Two class today. Kuntz pretty much just handed out Film Project #2, and then we briefly discussed what would be required. Mostly, he just told us that we would talk about everything next week. Then, he showed us a sample Project #1 from a previous year. He prefaced it by saying that this was a very good Project #1, and no one should be scared away by it. And it was unimpressive. So, either I missed something, they�re looking for different stuff than I would have though, or it�s really not going to be too bad. After that, Kuntz showed us a video about how to use the school�s Super 8 projectors, and handed out the codes for LACC�s three Cinema 2 projector rooms. (Obern was pretty much non-existent today.) This was the part of class that I was really interested in, because I really wanted to get a chance to see if my camera worked. I had certainly exposed a roll of film, but I had no idea what it would look like. By the way, I need to get a pick-up reel or two. I wish they had told us this beforehand. Apparently, they give them away free at Yale�s, and I was just there. Anyway, I needed to find someone who had a pick-up reel before I could test my film. I found this group of girls from my class that were trying to get into the projector room, and I got them in by using the projector codes Kuntz had just given us. They were very impressed, although I have no idea why. Maybe they hadn�t understood what the codes were for. Kuntz had only mentioned their use about 7-8 times. Seriously, though, they were very nice. And, one of them had an oversized pick-up reel. So, I was able to get a look at what I had filmed so far. And it looked great. For some reason, everything looks much better on film. Very crisp and clean. Plus, it was all in black-and-white, so it seemed like everything I had filmed was old. Very, very fun. I was very excited by the time everything was done. I can�t wait to start filming my Project #1 now.
Monday, September 22nd - We covered some very interesting stuff in Cinema One today. Most of it dealt with the actual working of the camera: claws, plates, film speed, and a bunch of other stuff. But the most exciting thing we did was discuss exposure, and how the intensity of the light, the speed of the film, and the shutter angle affects the appearance of your film; real cinematography stuff. Very, very interesting. But it�s very technical, and requires a lot of math. So much so, that lighting for film has become more of a science than an art. If you have a light meter, and you understand what you are doing, there should never be a problem with lighting. (There are not a lot of people in the class that want to � or will be able to � deal with lighting�at least if the questions they asked are any indication.) We also talked a great deal about effects that you can create in the camera. Things like closing the shutter enough to get strobing (which Spielberg used to great effect in Saving Private Ryan), opening it enough to get blurring (which is used all the time in modern action movies, and which I don�t care for at all), and even messing up the timing between the shutter and the claw (another effect Spielberg used in the fight scenes in Saving Private Ryan.) This kind of stuff is fascinating to me. I�m starting to see why it is that certain movies have a certain feel to them, and how that effect can be duplicated. It�s starting to feel like the real education has begun. The lectures are pretty long, and very information-heavy. I love them, but she seems concerned that people are losing focus. So, she always shows some video at the end; either a student film, or a documentary about foley artists, or � today � an Extreme Machine episode about the camera. It was interesting, but I get the feeling that community college teachers are trying to prevent people from getting bored. So a lot of the stuff takes longer to do than it would if everyone would just buckle down and get to work. Oh well.
Tuesday, September 23rd - More old silent films. I�m starting to acquire a real taste for these now. My opinion had always been that silent films were all slapsticks - Keystone Cops chase Charlie Chaplin around for 10 minutes � but that�s pretty unfair. So far, except for the very early Edison-type films, (which were pretty much based on vaudeville acts), there as been almost no comedy stuff. That�s for next week � Chaplin and Keaton. But the films from today were very thought provoking. Started off with Un Chien Andalou, a surrealist film created by Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali. Several reviews that I read stated that Bunuel and Dali purposely rejected any ideas that made sense. And that�s what I was expecting going in. But that�s really not a true characterization of the film. After the opening �eyeball� shot � Horrible! � every scene is connected to the one before it. But usually in a non-essential way, which is probably where the idea of a non-rational story comes into play. The most interesting thing about the film is the fact that, although it is composed of about 10-12 apparently unconnected shots, there is a very distinct mood that runs throughout the entire story. You spend all the time feeling vaguely disturbed. The randomness tends to remove you from the immediate impact of a lot of the things you are seeing, but the common threads keeps you from detaching yourself completely. The result is very interesting. I would like to watch it again some time, if only to see whether or not it is possible to give more rational explanations to the scenes than people think. I expect it is possible. We ended the evening with a viewing of The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari, a German film from 1919. We were supposed to watch Variet�, but it�s a two reel film, and one of LACC�s projectors was broken. So, we watched this one instead. Very interesting. The visuals were�poor, to say the least. Although it was made 3 years after Intolerance, it was far inferior from a cinematic standpoint. And it was very stylized; especially the backdrops, which were all done by Impressionistic painters. But the story was very, very good. The Germans became obsessed early on with the psyche, and this film was a perfect example of that. It even had a twist ending�or two. I won�t spoil it, just in case anyone wants to find really, really old silent movies to watch. The highlight of the evening, however, was definitely our viewing of the middle film: Eisenstein�s Potemkin. The Russians were amazing early film makers; they devised an editing method all their own called Conflict Montage. Like good Marxists, they start out with a thesis shot, which could have many meanings; it is shown without any context. Then, they show you an antithesis shot which could also have several meaning, if shown without context. But the second picture serves to give context to both shots, and provide a synthesis. I love all the Hegelian language! But this was a far more nuanced film than any silent films we had seen yet. Esienstein did not use actors, and he cast people as the characters that were most like them. Also, there is no real hero, or a main character that you follow. It�s a true Communist film; the People are its heroes. It also has the famous Odessa Steps sequence, which really must be seen. It is an editing marvel. Great, great stuff. The problem with watching so many films in class is that we never have enough time to talk about them afterwards. In fact, we could have talked about a single one of these films for the entire class period. Ah, well. I guess I�ll just have to write papers on them.
Wednesday, September 24th � I need to remind myself: have no preconceived notions as to how this class will go. Stempel has consistently surprised me, and today was no exception. We watched Reifenstahl�s hugely controversial Triumph of the Will, and I fully expected today�s discussion to devolve into Leni-bashing. But Stempel pulled a McLean on me. He forced the class to discuss each scene from the beginning of the film before he would allow us to talk about the political and moral ramifications. The result of this strategy � at least to the few open-minded members of the class � was that the question pretty much answered itself by the end of the film. And the answer is pretty scary. Basically, she did not intent to create a propaganda film. In fact, she was not a Nazi at the time, never became one, and felt that Hitler was a fascinating and dangerous man. But she was obsessed with creating a cinematic spectacle, and the result is an amazing portrayal of German post-WWI repression and resurgence. I think it is hard for us to watch, knowing what was to come, and not criticize her for her involvement. Still, there is a tendency, even amongst those who have not seen the film, to say that since she created a film that furthered the Nazi movement, she hated Jews. But that�s too easy. After watching the film, I can only say that she made a film that appeals profoundly to the German psyche, philosophy, and national sense of pride. And if Hitler was able to use it to his advantage, Riefenstahl should not be blamed for that. If anything, she was guilty of allowing her artistic desires to blind her judgment. However, as Capra himself said when asked to create pro-American propaganda films about WWII, there is no more damaging portrayal of Nazism than the one shown here. The people as a nation are clearly infatuated with Hitler, and have made an emotional decision completely detached from their reason. The most chilling sequences of the film are those that deal with Hitler towards the end of the rally. And what is clear is that he was an extraordinary man. He has an amazing magnetism and power, even now, when we know what a monster he will become. It is easy to see why, at the time, he was able to convert an entire country to his way of thinking. It is not hard to imagine that the same happened with Leni Riefenstahl herself. The consequences of this film on her life were profound. She spent every day of her 101 years trying to live it down. In fact, shortly before she passed away, she said: "Triumph des Willens casts such a shadow over my life that death will be a blessed release." The sad story of a brilliant filmmaker caught up in events she did not understand.
Thursday, September 25th - Very interesting Cinema 4 class today, mostly about continuity editing. I finally understand the infamous 180� line rule. Makes good sense, actually. We also talked a bit about screen direction, and making sure that all your footage is useable by overlapping. Stuff like that. Then, we started watching everyone�s Project #1�s. I�m going to be almost dead last. Oh well. By the time we get to mine, everyone will be completely sick of watching them. There are about 30 people in the class, I think. And we watched about 8 films last night. So, its going to take about a month. I�m #25. So, I get to compare my project to pretty much everyone else�s before anyone gets to see mine. And so far, it�s an interesting comparison. Most of the ones we have seen so far have better camera work than mine, especially as far as the pacing goes. (I really rushed the middle section of my role.) But most of the composition is hasty; most of the students don�t seem to have thought out each shot very carefully. Except for the first one, which was done by a Polish girl named Kinga. It was really great. Easily the best one so far. It will be very interesting to see what happens. Plus, I got to listen to the Dodgers get eliminated on the way home. All in all, a very eventful day.
Monday, September 29th - Today we got to the very heart of film making: the lens. Thank goodness we have a teacher. The chapter of the book that dealt with lenses was hopelessly confusing. F-stops, T-stops, apertures, depth of field, depth of focus; all thrown at you with no real explanations. By the time I was done reading, I was hopelessly confused. Well, maybe not hopelessly. But very. Once Professor Varner started talking about it, though, it was a totally different story. She has the strange idea that reducing things to principles helps make them more understandable. Cool! Anyway, it was a great, great class. More and more, I see that the ability to get the lighting and picture you want is a science, not an art. The framing of a shot may be something artistic, but the rest of it is very scientific. F-stops, T-stops, focal lengths, light meters�all these things work together to tell you exactly what you should get on the film when you are done. That�s fascinating to me, and very different than what I had imagined. There are people in the class who are way more knowledgeable than me in these areas, especially the ones who have done photography of some sort. They don�t have to try and understand F-stops at all. However, T-stops are what you really need to know, and they are always slightly higher than F-stops. So, now all I need is a $10,000 camera with a few $1,000 lenses, and a bunch of $150-a-roll film. Yikes. On the bright side, it�s really, really neat stuff. The more I discover about the camera, the more I like it. There are so many things you can do to further the story; the difference between dollying and zooming, wide-angle vs. telephoto, the famous dolly zoom, etc. The list goes on and on. I just wish I could spend all my time on this kind of thing; its tricky to pick up by only doing it at night. Almost like I don�t get enough repetitions in this stuff. It takes longer to stick. We also got to watch a documentary on NFLFilms, which was fun. I got to combine my sports and cinema. Great stuff. Those guys are completely crazy, and really on the cutting edge of the film field. One final note: I was unable to listen to Dodger baseball - or Dodger Talk, for that matter - on the way home for the first time tonight. Sad.
Tuesday, September 30th - Silent Film Comedy night. Which I figured would be pretty much slapstick, and pretty boring. And I was about half right. We watched two shorts - one by Chaplin and one by Harold Lloyd - and a feature written by, directed by, and staring Buster Keaton. The Chaplin was pretty slapstick, although there were tinges of subtlety about it. It was the story of The Tramp, Chaplin�s reoccurring character, taking on a prizefighter, and somehow winning. He may have been the first person who introduced the idea of someone succeeding through incompetence. His character wins to complete random chance. It had moments of humor, mostly because of Chaplin�s amazing physical dexterity. The Lloyd was straight-out slapstick�and it was not funny. Although Stempel claims that Lloyd was the most believable of all silent era comedians, he also ages extremely poorly. So, we talked about both of these films in turn, and compared the two. Relatively unexciting conversation. But then we watched Keaton�s Seven Changes. WOW! I must preface what I am about to say with the statement that I don�t like comedies much. I just don�t think many of them are actually funny. And I like slapstick ones even less. But this may be the best made comedy I have ever seen. The funny thing, at least compared to other silent comedies, is that there is very little slapstick humor in it. There is a ton of physical humor; including Keaton�s amazing stunts (which he did all himself, a la Jackie Chan�or is that the other way round). But what really shines through is Keaton�s unparalleled (as least in my mind) sense of comedic timing. He uses the same gag many times, but you never know exactly when it will happen. Which is something Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, Jim Carrey and the like should study in great detail; they certainly can�t say the same thing about their gags. I was laughing very hard for significant portions of the film - an unusual thing for me - and I really loved it. I need to find more Keaton stuff. Like The General, one of only two �epic comedies,� in the words of Stempel. Maybe Salzers would have something like that.