by Mark Young

Noah is a film that raised quite a bit of controversy before it ever came to wide release.  For this reason, among others (my faith included), I took special interest in this film.  On Thursday I invited you, my wonderful readers, to take part in an experiment.  We would analyze the trailer, see the film, and then review it.  Now obviously I’m doing the main posts about the film; however I really want to hear from you in the comments section below.

For those who do not know the Biblical story of Noah allow me to bring you up to speed.  Noah was a good man when no other man could be called such.  For this reason God chose to save Noah and his family’s lives when God decided to destroy the world with a flood.  God planned to destroy the world with a flood and save only Noah and a male and female of each animal species.  Noah was instructed by God to build an ark, which is a large structure roughly the size of a modern football stadium.  Then Noah, his family and all the animals would ride out the world destroying flood in the Ark.

Now for those who have yet to see the movie allow me to give you fair warning that there will be some spoilers given in this review.  I found this movie to be a fantastic visual display that creatively brought the world of Noah to life.  The special effects were top notch, and I cannot think of a moment where I thought they were out of place with the style for which the film was attempting.

Darren Aronofsky completely out did himself in storytelling and was able to stay more true to the Biblical story than most conservative Christians will want to admit.  Mr. Aronofsky has clearly done his research and incorporated many if not all of the fantastic elements of the Noah story.   He has clearly tapped into Jewish oral traditions and even the Apocrypha scriptural texts to create a film that is almost more sci-fi or fantasy than Biblical epic.

Many of the elements that receive the most complaints such as the giant rock creatures called Watchers, Noah’s belief that God wanted to save only animals, or the stowaway on the ark are all found in extra-biblical writings.  This allowed Mr. Aronofsky to create a more full cinematic story that still kept the message true to the Biblical account.

Having grown up in an evangelical church this film stretched me in ways I did not predict.  There were parts that made me uncomfortable and other parts that I greatly enjoyed.  However, the core story that God wanted to save the world for the good and give man a place in that world is not lost.    I think everyone should take some time to see this film and allow this piece of art to make you uncomfortable.  Allow Noah to challenge you and cause you to ask the hard questions.  Hopefully, this will be as rewarding of an experience for you as it was for me.

So please, let me know your opinions and thoughts on the film.  Did you see it? Did you avoid it? Why or why not?  What did you like and what did you hate?  Leave your comments below and please share why you have this opinion.  Thank you for reading.

Similar to the Arri Alexa, the Panavision Genesis is a popular camera that has been used by an overwhelming list of productions. When the Genesis was released, it was one of the most commonly used and popular cameras on the market. Here are some of the productions that have used the Panavision Genesis:

• Superman Returns (Bryan Singer, 2006)
  
• Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (Sidney Lumet, 2007)
• 21 (Robert Luketic, 2008)
  
• 2012 (Roland Emmerich, 2009)
  
• Easy A (Will Gluck, 2010)
  
• Captain America: The First Avenger (Joe Johnston, 2011)
  

The camera has not been used in the past year, showing that its competitors are beginning to push the Genesis out of the market. However, the camera is still in circulation.

Panavision began differently than most motion picture camera companies. Rather than starting by producing cameras, Panavision began by creating anamorphic projection lenses, which were in growing demand in movie theaters during the 1950's. Robert Gottschalk, one of Panavision’s founders, owned a camera equipment store in which his costumers were cinematographers. As a result, he noticed the need for anamorphic camera lenses, and suggested that Panavision produce those as well. Soon after the company’s creation in 1953, Panavision launched into the market for the anamorphic projection and camera lenses. The camera lenses instantly became popular in the production market, leading MGM to commission Panavision to start working on a widescreen format. They soon produced the MGM Camera 65, which was a widescreen format made for films shot in 65mm film. The first major film the MGM Camera 65 was used on was Ben-Hur (William Wyler, 1959), which won a record breaking 11 Oscars including Best Cinematography. The success of this film and the anamorphic format solidified Panavision in the market for producing camera equipment.

Panavision was given a lucky opportunity in 1962, when The Mutiny on the Bounty (Lewis Milestone, 1962) went so far over budget that MGM was forced to liquidate some of its assets to Panavision. As a result, Panavision was given the rights to the MGM camera equipment division as well as the rights to the MGM Camera 65 format, and changed the widescreen format to the Ultra Panavision. However, because of the increasing popularity of 35mm filmmaking, the Ultra Panavision was virtually obsolete by this time. So Gottschalk decided to change the company’s business model, turning Panavision solely into a camera equipment renting company. This meant that the company could regularly maintain and update the cameras, allowing for Panavision to reach new standards of durability. The company also continued to produce 65mm cameras, but similarly to the MGM Camera 65 format, the 65mm filmmaking was becoming obsolete.

Then Panavision created the Panaflex, a lightweight camera that was to be used mainly for handheld purposes. This camera was revolutionary to the motion picture camera market, because it eliminated the need for a sound blimp and allowed for synchronized sound in handheld camera work. The first film to use this camera was The Sugarland Express (Steven Spielberg, 1974). The success of the Panaflex in the 1970’s and the updated versions that appeared in later years proved to be essential to the success of the company, and made it one of the most competitive camera companies on the market. 

The Panavision Genesis is their most recent camera, and was a response to the influx of digital cameras that cornered the market about 10 years ago. Similar cameras that are competitors with the Panavision Genesis are the Arri Alexa, any of the RED cameras, and the Sony CineAlta, among others. Panavision is unique in that since their remodeled business plan in 1962, they do not sell their cameras, but rather rent them out to studios and filmmakers. This allows for Panavision to update the cameras themselves, so that the cameras are ready to be used and up to date when the filmmakers begin their projects. Along with the Genesis, you can also rent out other cameras that are not created by Panavision. If you go on their website, it gives the option to select cameras such as the Arri Alexa, the Sony F55, the RED Epic, etc. This helps Panavision make revenue even when their camera is not being as successful in the market.

The Panavision Genesis, like the Alexa, uses a Super 35 chip, which allows for the user to utilize any 35mm film lenses they may have. The chip has a 16:9 aspect ratio and although it initially records in 5760x2160, the camera cuts this in half to have a final resolution output of 1920x1080. Because Panavision initially had difficulty with colorimetry, specifically with Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (George Lucas, 2002), they created their own Panalog color space. This has a better ability to preserve color highlights in post-production and as a result, this camera is often preferred for films with large amounts of visual effects in post-production.

Overall this camera is respectable for filmmaking and has been proven to be an asset for many of the productions in the past decade. Because this camera is starting to become unused by the film industry, expect to see either an updated Genesis camera, or a newer camera in the coming years. Panavision remains one of the more successful camera equipment companies, and they have produced a quality camera with the Panavision Genesis.

by Mark Young

Thus far I have done two trailer analyses on movies that, once I viewed them, were a bit of a letdown.  Now this is not to say that they were “bad films;” it takes a lot for me to say something is a “bad film.”  What I am simply trying to say is that the final product in the film doesn’t always live up to the hype of the trailer.  There are several reasons for this; here are what I consider the biggest three:

1) The trailer creators are working with an incomplete product.
Often the first trailer is finished before the film has even completed shooting, and most of the trailers are definitely created before post production is completed.

2) Movie Trailers only show potential.
Because the trailer creators are using an incomplete product they are forced to illustrate “what may be” instead of what actually is.  The trailer creators see the footage thus far and sometimes have the script in hand.  From this they assemble it to show where they think the film is headed.  Or they may emphasize one aspect of the film such as the action, the love story, or the danger.

3) Trailer creators are very good at their jobs.
We cannot fault the trailer creators for making us want to see a film.  This is their job and they are very good at it.  Imagine if they created a trailer that made us not want to see the film.  Then people wouldn’t see it, that film wouldn’t make the money to recoup its cost, and some poor editor may lose his or her job.

Today, and this weekend, I am going to invite you to participate this discussion.  I will show you two trailers to Noah below, I will analyze some key points, and then I would love to hear your thoughts about what these trailers are trying to express and what you hope to see in the comment section.  You may also leave your comments on our Facebook page which you can access by clicking this link: Facebook Link.  Then, later this weekend, I encourage you to see this film and return to our website on Monday for my movie review of Noah.  You may share what you liked and didn’t like and see how accurate your and my analyses were.  Here are the trailers:

Biblical Epic
For many who already know the story of Noah this is clearly a Biblical epic film.  The Biblical epic was a form highly utilized in the 50s and 60s and gave us such greats as Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, and The Greatest Story Ever Told.  These films were critically acclaimed and lauded for their artistic expression of Biblical narratives.  They put these grandiose stories on display in a scale they deserve and I feel this is what Darren Aronofsky, director of Noah, is trying to accomplish.

Disaster Movie
Now, let us not forget that at the heart of the Biblical story, Noah is a disaster film.  After all, the destruction of the entire world by a flood would be pretty disastrous.  Disaster movies also have a grand scale and must be careful in their use of special effects.  We want to be caught up in the spectacle not pushed out of the film by an unbelievable special effect sequence.  The effects in this movie look to be top notch and the way the trailer builds up from puddles on the ground, to rain, to geysers, to flood gives me hope that the film will build in intensity culminating with one great spectacle.

Artistic License
If you watched both trailers you may have noticed something different at the end of the second one.  A message that essentially says: this film is based on the Biblical story of Noah but artistic license has been taken to create the story portrayed in this film.  To this I would like to say: of course artistic license was taken.  Artistic license is always taken with every film because film is an artistic medium.  Some things that seem to be artistic license are: the love story between Emma Watson’s character and one of Noah’s sons, the townspeople violently opposing Noah, and even the age of Noah’s sons.  This does not, however mean that they are trying to destroy the story of Noah.  If anything it serves to make it more palpable to the general viewer and get the message behind the film to a larger audience.

So, what are your thoughts about these trailers?  Do you think Noah will live up to the hype?  Please leave your thoughts in the comments section provide below, and join us Monday for the review of this same film.

One of the most successful and critically acclaimed directors of all time is 3-Time Academy Award winner James Cameron. Born on August 16, 1954 in Ontario, Canada, Cameron was the son of an electrical engineer. Early in his life, his family moved to southern California. After high school, Cameron attended California State University to pursue a degree in Physics. However, upon graduation, he decided to pursue a film career instead. To support his early screenwriting, he became a truck driver, frequently pulling off the road to write screenplays (New York Times, Biography).


First Films
In 1978, Cameron co-directed and co-wrote his first film, a science-fiction short titled, Xenogenesis. The short eventually helped Cameron get a job with New World Pictures, a production company run by the famed B-movie director Roger Corman. Within New World Pictures, Cameron became the art director for the 1980 film Battle Beyond the Stars and the director for his first feature film, Piranha Part II: The Spawning (Biography).


Break-through Films
In 1984, Cameron received his first major break-through in The Terminator. The science-fiction film, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, was made possible by the professional relationship Cameron had with Hollywood mega-producer Gale Hurd, as both co-wrote the screenplay for the film. The Terminator received both critical and audience acclaim, and was a hit at the box office. Ultimately, this was just the beginning of Cameron’s highly successful films (New York Times).

Cameron’s next major film was the sequel to Ridley Scott’s 1979 box-office hit horror film, Alien. Cameron’s sequel, Aliens, was an action-adventure film instead of a horror film like the first installment. Nonetheless, Aliens was a critical and box-office success, and Cameron’s reputation as a director grew positively.

After directing the unsuccessful film The Abyss, Cameron returned to box-office success with Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The film was a box-office smash and was well received by critics and audiences. Afterwards, Cameron directed the expensive action comedy True Lies, which was yet another box-office success for Cameron (New York Times).

A few years later, Cameron would make the film that would arguably define his career-Titanic. Released in 1997, the extremely high budget film ($200 million) received a record-tying 14 Academy Award nominations, winning 11 of them. Ultimately, Titanic shattered box-office records by becoming the first film ever to gross over $1 billion at the box-office and became the highest grossing film of all time, garnering $658 million in the US alone. Cameron himself won 3 Oscars for the film (Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Film Editing). He was undoubtedly at the pinnacle of his incredible career (IMDB).

Ultimately, Cameron wouldn’t return to direct another feature-length film until over a decade later. In 2009, he wrote and directed the ground-breaking CGI filled epic, Avatar. Interestingly, Cameron started working on the story for the film over two decades earlier. Avatar ended up breaking the box-office record for the highest grossing film of all time (beating out Cameron’s previous film Titanic) by bringing in $760 million in the US (IMDB).

Trademarks
Cameron typically has strong female characters in his films (Ex: Ellen Ripley in Aliens). Also, he likes to cast Michael Biehn, Jenette Goldstein, Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. For the music in his films, he typically hires composers Brad Fiedel or James Horner. Common themes in his films include the arrogance of humanity and the over-reliance of technology (Aliens, Titanic). In technical areas, Cameron likes to shoot close-ups during fight scenes, achieving an almost claustrophobic effect for the audience. The cinematography for his films typically features deep blues (Aliens, The Abyss, Titanic). Finally, Cameron usually utilizes slow motion for intense scenes in his films, or in some cases he uses slow motion to intensify a scene.

Written by Anthony Watkins

WORKS CITED
IMDB. 2014. 15 March 2014. <http://www.imdb.com>.

Southern, Nathan. “James Cameron”. The New York Times. 2014. 15 March 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/10397/James-Cameron/biography>.

“James Cameron Biography”. Biography.com. 2013. 15 March 2014.
<http://www.biography.com/people/james-cameron-546570>.

 

            Of all the genres that are commonly observed in film, there is perhaps none as subjective and intangible as the “cult classic.” Whereas most film genres contain predictable traits and conventions that are revealed through specific iconographic cues, the cult film typically has no such indictors. Instead, the cult film is typically defined by its ability to develop an enduring, loyal fan base, despite the likelihood of a poor box office debut. Given this rather loose definition, it is not uncommon for the term to be abused and for some indie films to be marketed as “instant cult classics” prior to their release, which contradicts the assumption that a cult film must amass a devoted following before earning the right to be described as such. For cinephiles, this abuse of the term typically leads them to conclude that the category has become meaningless and “elastic, (or) a catchall for anything slightly maverick or strange” (Bentley-Baker). Other film scholars like Mark Shiel have criticized the term for being a weak concept that is far too reliant on subjectivity.

            Considering these discrepancies, how should we define a movie as a “cult classic,” and where did this cinematic tendency begin? For the most part, cult films have existed since the early days of cinema. In fact, Nosferatu (Murnau, 1922), a German film that is observed as the first vampire movie, was supposed to be destroyed due to a copyright issue with Bram Stoker’s 1897 book, Dracula (Hall). However, the film was kept alive by a small cult following that circulated illegal bootlegs, enabling it to become one of the most influential pieces of the horror genre. Many other films that are now regarded as classics suffered from very similar issues upon their initial release, such as The Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955). When The Night of the Hunter was released, it was quite unsuccessful with audiences and critics, resulting in Laughton’s decision to never direct another picture. Nevertheless, the film gradually built a wider audience over the years and has since received an enormous amount of critical praise to the point where it is currently regarded as one of the greatest American films ever made.

            Although the previous examples demonstrate the power of the cult film to define certain movies as cinematic classics, for the most part, cult films tend to be strange, offbeat, and stylized works that cater to a very special appeal. Moreover, they are often considered controversial because they step outside of standard narrative and technical conventions, or feature content that goes against culturally accepted norms (Dirks). A fitting example of this would be The Rocky Horror Picture Show (Sharman, 1975), a musical that featured transvestites in a mysterious Gothic castle. With its release, The Rocky Horror Picture Show also became an iconic pioneer of the interactive “midnight movie” craze, where fans attend movie showings dressed in costumes and bearing props (Dirks).

            For some directors, embracing the cult film formula has ultimately defined their legacy. In the case of the oft-maligned Ed Wood, through cult films like Glen or Glenda? (1953), a docudrama about cross-dressing and transsexuality, and Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959), a story about invading aliens in California who animated the dead, Wood built a rather large following and developed a reputation for being the worst Hollywood filmmaker of all-time (Dirks). Meanwhile, in the case of the Coen Brothers, through cult films like Barton Fink (1991), a dark comedy about a New York playwright experiencing writer’s block, and The Big Lebowski (1998), a comedy crime film about an easy-going stoner in Los Angeles, the Coen Brothers were able to develop a quirky style that earned them tremendous followings and solidified their reputation as excellent filmmakers.

            With all of that said, we are still left with our original question: how should cult films be defined and identified? As the film and arts critic, Adrian Martin, pointed out in his article “What’s Cult Got to Do with It? In Defense of Cinephile Elitism,” cult films should not be solely defined by their ability to attract a large, devoted following (Bentley-Baker). For him, the true mark of a cult film should be its ability to transcend from oblivion to veneration. While this certainly seems to be a valid indicator for understanding which films should be considered cult films, I am still not so certain that there is any foolproof checklist to gauge what defines a cult film. Overall, the very essence of the cult film seems to demonstrate how movies can function as an artistic medium that is subjective and never self-evident, making the cult film a very important genre for understanding the power and significance of cinema.

Works Cited

Bentley-Baker, Dan. "What Is Cult Cinema?" Bright Lights Film Journal. Issue 69 (2010): <http://brightlightsfilm.com/69/69cult_bentleybaker.php

Dirks, Tim, ed. "Cult Films." Filmsite. <http://www.filmsite.org/cultfilms.html>.

Hall, Philip. "The Bootleg Files: "Nosferatu"." Film Threat. 26 Oct 2007. <http://www.filmthreat.com/features/2056/>.

At 40,000 feet in a crowded airplane, one is limited in space and things to do. Some really enjoy flying, but many, however, don’t like it and think it's a drag. Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is on the latter side. Nonetheless, his job requires it. Marks is a US Federal Air Marshall. We see immediately that he has many personal problems. To start, he's an alcoholic. The opening scene even shows him taking a quick swig before boarding a transatlantic flight from New York to London. After boarding, he has a conversation with a middle-aged woman (Julianne Moore), revealing more personal issues in that he's divorced with an increasingly distant teenage daughter.

A couple hours into the flight, Bill receives a strange text message from an unknown passenger on the plane. The passenger says that he/she will kill someone on the plane every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred to a specific bank account.  As the Air Marshall, it's up to Marks to find out who the text is from. . .and fast. As he gets more and more involved with the situation, he realizes the stranger may be up to something even more destructive than he previously thought. This is quite an interesting premise---one that does a fantastic job of hooking the audience and drawing them in to the thrilling "Non-Stop" ride.

First and foremost worth mentioning is Liam Neeson's performance. Since Taken, Neeson has made a name for himself as a "take-no-prisoners" tough guy. Non-Stop firmly reinforces this reputation. The 6'4", 61 year old actor proves himself yet again able to deliver a strong performance in the action genre. The Academy Award nominee has quickly become one of my favorite actors in recent years, and his performance in Non-Stop won't leave fans disappointed.

Another strong aspect of the film worth mentioning is the direction by Jaume Collet-Serra. This is the second film in which the Spanish director has teamed up with Liam Neeson, after 2011's Unknown. Throughout the film, Jaume's camera dollies in on several passengers---essentially making each one a suspect. Effectively, this keeps viewers guessing as to who is really sending the text messages to Marks. This camera work, combined with the interesting premess, keeps the audience on the edge of their seat until the final act of the film.

Ultimately, I think yet another potent aspect the film possesses is its message. I won’t reveal it, but I think its extremely relevant to the world today in regard to airline travel, especially in the wake of the disappearance of the Malyasian Airlines flight. It’s very coincidental the film was released so close to what many are calling “the greatest aviation mystery since Amelia Earhardt”. 

In conclusion, Non-Stop is what its title suggests---a non-stop thrill ride to the very end. Fueled by a strong performance from Liam Neeson, his well-written, fleshed-out character Bill Marks, strong direction from Jaume Collet-Serra, and an intriguing premise, Non-Stop is a smart, solid early entry for 2014. It may not be an Oscar contender, but nonetheless will (hopefully) leave you thrilled and satisfied.

Written by Anthony Watkins

The summer is always full of blockbuster films, and although they may not receive large quantities of awards during Oscar season, they still have enormous fan bases who are dedicated to their stories. In recent years there has been a tendency for superhero films and movie sequels, particularly dominated by Marvel Studios or Warner Brothers. While these are not usually considered respectable from a critic's perspective, these films definitely have a strong handle on the market and what people desire to see on the big screen. If you are ever interested in seeing the direction which the film industry is headed, the summer blockbusters will usually show you the most up-to-date technology in the film industry. So let’s look at some of this year's most anticipated films, the reasons behind their popularity and some of the new technology they will be using in their productions.

The Raid: Berandal (Gareth Evans)

When the Indonesian film The Raid: Redemption (Gareth Evans) was released in 2011, it became an instant cult classic, simply because of the action-packed nature of the story. The film is a story about a police force that storms a hotel owned by a drug kingpin. The film is just a bloodbath, the fantasy of an action fan, which made the film popular in the USA overnight. Welsh director Gareth Evans has continued this success and created the sequel The Raid: Berandal, which will be the story of the same Jakarta cop who is forced to raid another building level by level, this time against corrupt cops. It is anticipated to be another instant cult classic and has fans of the first film excited for its release. The film is very up-to-date with its digital filmmaking equipment, using Red Scarlet’s for most of the scenes, a Red Epic for the slow motion shots, and GoPro cameras throughout for the POV shots. Given that this film had a significantly larger budget due to the success of the first film, expect The Raid: Berandal to be another action packed adventure through the floors of a building. 

This film is not truly a summer blockbuster, but it kicks off the blockbuster season with its release on March 28, 2014. Go check out the film when it is released next weekend! Take a look at the trailer below.

Godzilla (Gareth Edwards)

When Warner Brothers released information that they were going to be making a reboot of the infamous Godzilla series that originated in the 1950’s, many people were skeptical of the idea. However with the release of the trailer (which you can see below) we could instantly tell that this film would not be simply a ploy for money. Drawing on a similar style that we saw in Guillermo Del Toro’s successful monster blockbuster Pacific Rim (2013) last year, we see mankind forced to team together to fight Godzilla. The imagery looks more stunning than most anticipated, using the color red to emphasize the horror hiding in the darkness. What is interesting about this film is that they decided to not rely as heavily on visual effects, using a small amount of green screens to produce a real image on the screen. Extras were used in excess, even using up to 200 soldiers for one battle sequence. Like X-Men: Days of Future Past, they used the Arri Alexa to digitally film the movie, and used older lenses for the scenes taking place in the 1960’s in order to give a vintage feel for that time period. 

This film is definitely the most anticipated film of the summer and is scheduled to be released on May 16, 2014. Go see this film and you will most likely be stunned by the high powered, action-packed and visually stunning story. 

X-Men: Days of Future Past (Bryan Singer)

The X-Men series has become one of the most successful franchises to date, and was one of the original series to kick off the superhero explosion in the past decade. X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) is the latest installment of the superheroes and is building on the prequel series that began with X-Men: First Class (2011). The interesting part about this film is that it is going to combine the cast of the original films with the cast of the most recent films to provide audiences with an incredible ensemble. The film is being shot using the popular Arri Alexa, which is Arri’s fantastic response to the digital revolution within filmmaking. You can take a closer look at the camera here: http://tinyurl.com/kzdvqvh. This is also the first X-Men film that will be shot in 3D, and will be the second most expensive film ever produced by 20th Century Fox, behind Avatar (James Cameron, 2009). Bryan Singer directed this film, which will be his third time directing, and fourth time being credited, for an X-Men film to date.

X-Men: Days of Future Past is set to be released on May 23, 2014, so be ready to go see it in theaters. It’s nonlinear storytelling and ensemble cast will make this a must see for blockbuster moviegoers. Take a look at the trailer below.

Guardians of the Galaxy (James Gunn)

Marvel is at it again. They've overwhelmed the comic filmmaking market with the Spiderman series, the X-Men series and the Avengers series, yet they have decided to launch a new campaign with The Guardians of the Galaxy. The film is an adaptation of a series of comic books which focuses on a band of outlaws who get together to protect the universe from formidable forces. Because quite a bit of alien life and space is present in this story, a large amount of CGI was used to create this film. This included two of the main characters which were almost all computer animated: Groot, a talking and walking treelike creature, and Rocket, an intelligent and master tactician raccoon. Fans have been hoping for this film for years and are overwhelmed with excitement for its release.

Guardians of the Galaxy is being released on August 1, 2014, making it a real summer blockbuster. Make sure you go see the film this summer, especially if you are a fan of the Marvel universe, as it surely will connect with some of their previous films. Take a look at the trailer below.

Interstellar (Christopher Nolan)

Christopher Nolan is one of the most respected storytellers, because he knows how to manipulate a story arch and timeline to provide a narrative that’s full of mystery and suspense. These traits are what made The Dark Knight Trilogy so successful and popular, and are also what made Inception (2009) an instant classic. Since he finished The Dark Knight Rises in 2012, he hasn't released a production; however that is about to change. Hollywood’s most popular director created Interstellar (2014), the story of a group of space travelers who venture through a wormhole. The film stars Matthew McConaughey (who recently won the Oscar for Best Actor), Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine and Jessica Chastain, and shows an interesting potential new trend for recent directors. Similar to Gravity (Alfonso Cuaron, 2013), we see a film set in space with an all-star cast and a fantastic director. The film is shot on 35mm, as is typical with Nolan, as well as on an IMAX camera. The film score is composed by Hans Zimmer, who also created the scores for films such as The Lion King (1992), Gladiator  (2000), The Dark Knight  (2008), Inception  (2009) and Man of Steel  (2012), and is considered one of the best film composers on the market. 

This movie is not really a summer blockbuster, seeing as it comes out in November, but make sure you keep a lookout for this film. Take a look at the teaser trailer below.

Here are some other films that are gaining publicity as we enter this new season of films:

• Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Anthony and Joe Russo) - release date: April 4, 2014
• Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (Matt Reeves) - release date: May 23, 2014
• The Amazing Spiderman 2 (Marc Webb) - release date: May 4, 2014
• Transformers: Age of Extinction (Michael Bay) - release date: June 27, 2014
• How to Train Your Dragon 2 (Dean DeBlois) - release date: June 13, 2014
  

So which of these films is going to make an impact on the film industry for years to come? Will there be others that make an even greater impact than the one’s highlighted above? Go see these films. Although they may not have the same positive critiques and thematic influence as Oscar season films, they still make incredible impacts on the market and the future direction of the industry of cinema.

by Mark Young

The Cleveland International Film Festival (CIFF) had its opening yesterday evening.  They started off the festival with the charming romantic comedy Not Another Happy Ending.  This film stars the lovely Karen Gillan from BBC’s Doctor Who, and the equally handsome Stanley Weber from Louis XV, le soleil noir.  This movie about a young writer working through writer’s block is relatable and fun.  If you get a chance to see it, do so.  Check out the trailer for this film below.

This particular film festival has chosen to focus on films that are not only artistically significant but culturally significant as well.  They really have a focus on educating and enriching community life through the exhibition of film.  CIFF wants their audience to walk away having learned something more about the cultures they observe in their films.

To assure that they accomplish the mission they have chosen to undertake, CIFF has set forth a set of Guiding Principles which I am including below for those who do not have time to explore the website itself.

“Set high standards for quality film education and exhibition, placing artistic and cultural merit above commercial appeal;”

“Foster understanding and appreciation of diverse cultures and values;”

“Work collaboratively to broaden access to quality film arts;”

“Cultivate an innovative and forward-thinking organization;”

“Ensure the organization's financial stability and increase its financial self-sufficiency;”

“Promote among board, staff, and volunteers a work environment based on integrity, professionalism, teamwork, trust, and respect.”

If you live in the Cleveland area or have time to suddenly take a week off and drive a great distance, I encourage you to attend this festival.  Tickets are only $14 per film.  And for Monday March 24th every film will be completely free courtesy of The Cleveland Foundation.  Check out this LINK, RIGHT HERE! CLICK HERE!  for full details and a list of screenings.

As part of my Behind-the-Scenes look at Steven Spielberg’s films, I decided to write up another brief inside look at a scene in Spielberg’s pioneering blockbuster Jaws.

It is widely known that throughout the film a robotic, mechanical shark was used. However, in order to help “legitimize” the film a bit, Spielberg and his crew desired real sharks to be shot in the film as well. As a result, experienced shark photographers Ron and Valerie Taylor were hired to shoot some shark footage off the coast of Australia.

The scene to be shot with the real sharks involved the killer shark in the film attacking the cage Hooper (Richard Dreyfus) was in. However, unsurprisingly, a problem soon presented itself. The sharks that were being filmed off of Australia were only 14 feet in length, compared to the estimated 26 foot long killer shark in the film. To resolve the issue, the shark cage was scaled down in order to make the live action sharks appear larger. Also, a small dummy and later a small person (a midget) was placed in the cage (Making of Jaws).

Soon another problem arose. Even with tempting them via bait, the sharks did not attack the cage. A week went by as Ron and Valerie unsuccessfully tried to film an attack scene. One day, however, a large shark swam over top of the cage and became entangled in the cables. Valerie Taylor quotes, “And when a shark is trapped, it goes crazy…and Ron was filming underwater, and actually that’s how we got that footage and they used it” (Making of Jaws).

After the incredible footage was captured, however, Ron and Valerie realized that no one was in the cage at the time. Spielberg, however, liked what was filmed and (not really having anything else to work with) put the footage in the final film. Due to no one being in the cage at the time of the “attack”, the script for Jaws was re-written so that the character of Hooper (originally killed off) would live by hiding on the ocean floor. 

Written by Anthony Watkins

WORKS CITED
Jaws. Screenplay by Peter Benchley and Carl Gottlieb. Dir. Steven Spielberg. Prod. David Brown and Richard B. Zanuck. 1975. Special Edition Blu-Ray. Universal Pictures, 1975.

            Since the early years of cinema, moviegoers have found themselves captivated by the prophetic nature of speculative, science-based depictions of the future. However, while these films tend to explore imaginative scenarios through the inclusion of visually striking special effects and technologically advanced gadgets, it could be argued that their greatest draw stems from a proclivity to provide social commentary on the nature of humankind and its relationship to technology. Due to this fascination with speculation, the science fiction genre has gradually matured into one of cinema’s largest and most commercially successful movements ever.

            Although many early films featured fanciful special effects that sought to thrill audiences, Georges Méliès, an imaginative French filmmaker and magician, truly pioneered conventions of the science fiction genre through his film, A Trip to the Moon (1902). With innovative and illusionary cinematic techniques, Méliès created many memorable images that influenced filmmakers to explore the possibilities of using special efforts to enhance the craft of storytelling. Another prominent science fiction film from the early years of cinema was the expressionistic masterpiece, Metropolis (Lang, 1927), which is still highly acclaimed for its futuristic sets and mechanized society themes (Dirks).

            When the 1930s began, the advent of sound and the effects of the Great Depression led audiences to pursue films with more escapist themes, such as the low-budget, space exploration tales of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. This ultimately resulted in the declining popularity of serious speculative films at the time. Nevertheless, other elements of the science fiction genre were carried into the horror genre, which was experiencing profound growth primarily because of the massive success of James Whale’s Frankenstein (1931) and superior sequel, Bride of Frankenstein (1935).

            Despite struggling through most of the 1930s and 40s, the science fiction genre really took off in the 1950s, which was dubbed “the Golden Age of Science Fiction Films” (Dirks). Out of response to the growing interest in space exploration, films depicting outer space were released, such as Destination Moon (Pichel, 1950). In addition, alien films saw a huge surge in popularity, partly because of the Kenneth Arnold and Roswell incidents of 1947, and also due to anxiety over the Cold War and spread of Communism.  Two films that capitalized on this movement were The Thing from Another World (Nyby and Hawks, 1951) and The Day the Earth Stood Still (Wise, 1951). Another subgenre that had enormous popularity at the time was the mutant creature or monster film, which came about due to fears of destructive rockets and the atomic bomb. Some of the more popular film’s falling under this category were The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (Lourié, 1953), Them! (Douglas, 1954), The Blob (Yeaworth Jr. and Doughten Jr., 1958), and of course, Japan’s Godzilla (Honda, 1954). At the same time, several films were created that focused on the dangers of human mutation, such as The Fly (Neumann, 1958), The Amazing Colossal Man (Gordon, 1957), and The Incredible Shrinking Man (Arnold, 1957).

            After the rush of science fiction films during the 1950s, the genre was radically changed in the 1960s with 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968). With groundbreaking visual effects and an incredibly realistic portrayal of space travel, 2001 is now widely revered as one of the greatest films ever made. From this point on, science fiction films typically began to enjoy increasingly larger budgets and ever improving special effects, as the next decade saw the release of Planet of the Apes (Shaffner, 1968), Star Wars (Lucas, 1977), and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Spielberg, 1977). Following the enormous financial success of Star Wars, science fiction became bankable and each major studio rushed such films into production. This heightened respect for the science fiction genre led to the rebirth of Star Trek as a film franchise (Roddenberry’s original TV show aired between 1966-1969), as well as the release of Alien (Scott, 1979), Blade Runner (Scott, 1982), The Terminator (Cameron, 1984), and E.T. (Spielberg, 1982).

            Digital effects have only become more sophisticated since then, and spectacular worlds and stories have been created through films like Jurassic Park (Spielberg, 1993), Independence Day (Emmerich, 1996), The Matrix (1999), Avatar (Cameron, 2009), and the latest Oscar winner for Visual Effects, Gravity (Cuarón, 2013). Although the genre struggled at times early on, the impact of science fiction on film history is unquestionable. Where once the genre was defined by low-budget B-movies, now science fiction has become the predominant genre for blockbuster hits, and is taken far more seriously. Given the impressive technology that is currently available to filmmakers, as well as the science fiction genre’s ability to captivate viewers through speculative depictions of the future, it is safe to assume that the genre will continue to impact film for many more years to come.

Works Cited

Dirks, Tim, ed. "Science Fiction Films." Filmsite. <http://www.filmsite.org/sci-fifilms.html>.