Film Making fom the Actor’s View

            Acting is vital in the film industry; without an actor, you don’t have a movie, and if you don’t have a good actor, you will have a bad movie. So, what is it like from the actor’s view point of making a film? Well, as a film maker and fellow actress, I have had quite a few opportunities to be able to experience film making from other people and learn important techniques with both acting and film making. I also had the opportunity to be able to have a best friend who is also an actress. I was able to sit down with Katt Domingue and get her opinion on film making, since she has never made a film, only act in them.

            Domingue says, “On set, there is so much pressure to do perfect at something, built up with how the director can be so stressed that he doesn’t want to have to worry about how much talent his actor has at the time.” Being a director can be one of the most stressful jobs as a film maker. You are wearing most, if not all, of the hats at the time you enter on set to the time you get off. If you can’t direct, your film will most likely not be done properly or on time and will ultimately fail. In the article Anger and Fear in Decision making: The Case on Film Directors on Set as study by Jean- Francois Coget, Christophe Haag, and Donald E. Gibson, they studied the phenomena in crisis-laden field setting of film directors actively engaged in directing motion pictures. In the case, the researchers shadowed and interviewed seven film directors. They looked at how film directors reacted to the emotional, mental, and physical stress when under the pressures of film making. In the end of the case, they discovered that rational decision making occurred when directors, driven by feelings of moderate fear and little previous experience with a situation, relied on a more conscious, deliberate decision making process.

            Later, Domingue talks about the pressures of being a female in the film industry. “It’s hard to see all these celebrities made to look perfect for television. I find myself competing with what seems like an almost impossible figure type. Fortunately, I am proud of how I look and I would prefer to be true to myself than be something I’m not.” It is very true that as a society built around the fact that there is a large competition on how we are supposed to look. In the book, “Heavenly Bodies” by Richard Dyer, he discusses the affects celebrities have on society and how they ultimately create the ideal image of how people are supposed to look. He talks about many celebrities, including the very beautiful Cindy Crawford, and her influence on the young woman of her time as well as her influence on society’s females today. Acting is a very difficult job to begin with, but having to keep a decent body image is very difficult.

Cindy Crawford

            As an actress, it is easy to be able to see what the pressures are as a director. Behind the fact that there are a lot of jobs you have to supervise as a director and the figure head of the film and it can cause a major problem on set if not everyone is prepared. But, because I have played multiple roles in film making including acting, it was nice to be able to sit down with Katt and be able to discuss her views on film making. The directors expect an actress to look the part and as a competitive industry, it is expected that an actress have a figure acceptable for society, which is thin and slender and beautiful. If you ever want to act in a film, remember that there is a lot more to it than just memorizing a few lines in a script.          

 

 

1. Dyer, Richard. Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2006.     Google Books. Google. Web. 4 Nov. 2013. <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LpLBA5J8FHwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=film+influence+on+society&ots=xvzupvWH7Y&sig=rVXFPSO73UgqtE9eI4fDcw0DCd8#v=onepage&q=film%20influence%20on%20society&f=false&gt;

This book is about the influence celebrities have had on society throughout the years. It goes over the famous celebrities in film and television and how society looks at them. It also goes into how society acts and takes action based on what is portrayed in films. It goes into influence and followers of film stars in society. The is credible because it is part of the Google scholars site as well as it is the second edition used in schooling.

Film Societies: Then and Now

Film societies have had a major part in how film is today. There have been many societies in film history, that have been vital to how film works and the large advances in film that have created major influences on society. From France, to Italy, to the very US of A, film societies have existed and are still here today helping with the industry every day. So, let’s talk a little bit more on how film societies came about, shall we?

In Film Societies, by Thorold Dickinson, he states that the first film societies were organized in Paris, France. They became known as cine-clubs and their function was to provide and audience for the amateur and semi-armature avant-garde films that were too obtuse for popular exhibition. It is said that film societies have been around since before the early 1920’s, but I was lazy in my research, so you can find that out for yourself. Private individuals would hire out a cinema at a late hour, usually closed, and invite friends to come and view an uncensored film unavailable at any other time. This is what helped in creating a lot of what happens at popular movie premieres nowadays. These cine-clubs were vital for independent film makers back then as well as today in society. It is what can help us film makers take our first baby-steps into having our film make a name for itself.

One large problem that resulted in film adopting sound, was that the many wanted to keep silent film alive and in swing. Silent films were only shown in theaters because at the time personal use of television was virtually non-existent. This caused a stir in the film industry, especially the influence of theater, because removing silent films completely would result in losing a part of our valued first film viewing experiences created. According to Dickinson, conversation was strongly in favor of retaining the art of silent film and against the vulgar innovation of the talking picture. It was clear that film society and movement was strong in the process of discriminating against talking films and sticking with the more imaginative thoughts of the silent genre made in Germany before Nazism overthrew much of German film.

With the steady growth of leisure film contributes more and more to how people work in society today. The possibilities of film have been able to reign free to imagine and take effect on independent thought and pursuit due to the influences of film societies that started in France seventy-five years ago. It has been exciting as a film student to be able to study the early films and the time of social outcome, taking those lessons into how I produce films today. Because film plays a major part on society today, it is easy to forget our roots of where everything started, especially if you are an independent film maker in such a competitive market. With film societies, independent film makers have been given the opportunity to compete with those much more well-known, major motion pictures with the use of film festivals to expose their latest as well as greatest works.

Film societies have been crucial in creating the film industry today. All starting in France, it is easy to say that the cine-clubs back in the day had a snootier atmosphere that was very secretive, which is very true. With the help of Thorold Dickinson and his book, I was able to learn quite a bit about the film societies of then and now, and pass that information along to you, my readers, as well as my words on the subject. As an independent film maker, I depend on film societies to submit my films to be able to make a name for myself in such a competitive industry. Without film societies, we would be very different as a society today.

 

 

1. Dickerson, Thorold. “Film Societies.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 3.3 (1969): 85-95. JSTOR.    Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <www.jstor.org/stable/ 3331706>.

            Film Societies by Dickerson is about the creation of cine-clubs and spread of cine-clubs throughout most of the world. Starting in France, the journal takes from the various countries of film societies and how film societies quickly progressed changing the way film today. This source is credible because it is produced by a university journal to help students and has many sources to help aid its facts.

Film History and its Influence Today

                Sit down and kick back. Stick your hand in that melted buttered popcorn and watch the credits flicker on the large screen in front of you. Yes, you are in a theater about to watch the next hit film, but have you ever wondered about how film and television came about or why it is the thing that people can’t actually live without anymore? How it was back then to how it is now?

            What actually stemmed the first motion picture was created in 1878, yes, not the 1900’s like most think, by British photographer Eadweard Muybridge. He was able to capture and show the movement of humans and animals. Only four years after was the first camera created, by Etienne Marey that captured 12 frames per second.  Thomas Edison, of all people, was the one to create the Kinetoscope, which later became the Kinetograph, which is a peepshow device that is used to move film past light and displayed it on the World’s Columbian Exhibition on Chicago. This lead to Edison creating the first motion picture studio in New York Jersey (1893). Thomas Edison’s company, using a projector built by Thomas Armat and C. Francis Jenkins, projects hand-tinted motion pictures in New York City in 1894. (Digital History).It wasn’t until 1940’s that sound became a part of film. Lee DeForrest demonstrated recording sound on the edge of a film strip, which began the change of film to the way we know it today.

  

British Movie Classics                                 1897 patent for the kinetograph

 

             “There is no question that films can both reflect and reinforce popular perceptions, and for some American cinematic images… can sadly become a substitute for reality itself,” says George Robinson in American Film and Society since 1945. As we grow as a society, it is easy to want to dream of what our life would be like under different circumstances, which became easy when film and television introduced a romanticized image of the life of others. With the romanticized images displayed on the screen, also created an over sexualized view on gender, creating many gender issues. “Since its birth, cinema has been about sex…the cinema also provides a site for the play of ideas about sexuality, gender, and national identity in twentieth century society,” states Stephen Brooke in Sexuality, Film, and Society. It is pretty easy to create a fetishized shot of a woman to create a stir of emotions, drawing in crowds of men. But, when adding a man with large muscles and abs, it is easy to draw in a female crowd as well. This wasn’t just American cinematography but all counties with film, “British national identity became, as the result of war, more problematically sexualized, as its traditionally masculine underpinnings became complicated be reference to a changing femininity” (Brooke). With the amount of sexuality and gender indifference in film, it is hard not wanting to change to be able to look like those on the screen. This is why there is a very stereotypical view on how people should look to be ‘socially acceptable’.

            Overall, film has changed our perspective on living life. It is easy to get lost in the gender fight that is associated with film and television, but we have a lot to thank the first creators of film, without any little creation to help move forward the process of making film, we would not have film like it is today and life would be very different. But, because film is so highly looked upon, it creates fetishized images of the human condition, which has been a rather bad influence on society today.

 

1. Bielby, Denise D., and William T. Bielby. “WOMEN AND MEN IN FILM.” WOMEN AND       MEN IN FILM. Sociologist for Women in Society, 2013. Web. 04 Nov. 2013.             <http://gas.sagepub.com/content/10/3/248.short>

            This journal article talks about the roles of gender in film and how women are under credited for what they do. The authors talk about how woman are used as over sexualized in the film industry and that influences young girls who look up to the female stars in the industry and making them receive the wrong idea of what is “woman”. This is credible for a source because the authors are both accredited professors at universities. 

     2. Brooke, Sephen. “Sexuality, Film, and Society.” Twentieth Century British History. 2nd ed. Vol.   8. N.p.: Dalhousie University,     1997. 272-77. Skyline. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.    <http://tcbh.oxfordjournals.org&gt;.

            Sexuality, Film, and Society is a book section from Twentieth Century British History entailing cinema and its sexual influences. Brooke goes into women aspects of film, discussing the femininity and gender confusion. He also takes about some influential films that changed cinema and gender roles from when film was still a baby to society. This source is very credible, being published by a University and having many sources backing up Brooke’s words. This book is part of the oxford journals which is very prestigious for a publication.

   3. “Digital History.” Digital History. N.p., 4 Nov. 2013. Web. 04 Nov. 2013.             <http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/film_chron.cfm&gt;

            This website is a historical timeline of all important events that happened in Film history. It has the invention of photography through to the rise of the film industry and its most important and influential people that involved the industry.  The website has a lot of links to take you to sources that support where the author got their facts from and also offers links to books and websites that will help further your search.

   4. Landy, Marcia. The Historical Film: History and Memory in Film. London: Athlone, 2001.           Google Books. Athlone Press. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.      <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-                 MUJ7emAAXsC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=film+history&ots=N5qL-            SncAj&sig=Lr4YvZAg6DzZ1Rs4OXd0xAnlrfc#v=onepage&q=film%20history  &f=false>

            The historical film is about film history. It talks about the birth of film and going through the ages of film and how it was taken in the real world. It talks about some of the old shows that made film popular as well as the well-known original films. This is credible because it is supported by many sources throughout and has a supporter to help with her novel.

   5. Quart, Leonard. “American Film and Society Since 1945.” Film Quarterly 39.1 (1985): 53-54.      JSTOR. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <www.jstor.org/ stable/ 1212290>.

            American Film is a review criticizing Albert Auster and his book on American Film History and how it isn’t what it is made up to be. Quart explains why Auster’s book isn’t credible and even goes to point out his grammar error and punctuality. It is a credible source because Film Quarterly is a popular film journal. It is the 39^th edition which shows that Quart is dedicated to helping in teaching the film society.  

Argumentitive: Pros and Cons of Film Going Digital

So, everybody knows that technology is changing society and how things work and function every day.  But how is it affecting movies and our viewing experience of movies? Well, as film goes digital, so does everything else, from the process of filming, to the development and editing, to the projection of the film onto the big screen and the viewing experience. I, for one, love that film is going digital; not only is it easier to make and produce a film to distribute with the best quality, but now that we have the option to go 3d and high speed, it makes the experience of the viewer’s much more pleasing and leaves them satisfied and wanting more. But, there are also cons, as always, with film and the digital age. With less film stock being used, the beauty of having that film feel we grew up with and knew well is lost, as well as the looming thought that anyone can know be a film maker, which leaves us film makers worrying that our competition just tripled with those less experienced but just as good YouTube clips that is making a big splash in the film industry.

Mike Eisenberg says that, “While the stories that keep the Hollywood money machine churning run in cycles, technology continues to evolve with every passing decade. A new revolution is stirring as 3D releases, DSLR cameras and free Internet distribution (YouTube, etc.) bring the digital age of filmmaking to Hollywood’s front door”, in his article on the film world vs. the digital world (Eisenberg, Movie Technology: The Continuing Battle of Film vs. Digital). As a young student film maker, having all this technology and opportunities at my doorstep excites me. I know have more of a chance of making a film that will be successful and/or make a bang in the film world. With many of the large barriers of entering the elite film world slowly being knocked down and easier to overcome, it makes me want to fight harder to have my film recognized and picked up by the big monopolies of the film industry.

But the cons of film going digital is a scary cloud that is hanging over every film makers head, even people like me. Like what Eisenberg mentioned is that free distribution on the internet and the use of common DLSRs is making it much easier for people to make films and distribute them. Nowadays anyone can make a ‘good’ film which makes the completion for actual film makers’ sky rocket to be fresh and new.  “Of course, all these benefits of digital come at a cost. Film will always be a part of the industry. When you listen to a majority of the film community speak, the passion for film is still alive and well. Every industry has seen new technology push old technology out the door, but rarely does the old equipment become obsolete”, says Eisenberg. The cost of making a successful film is also causing a huge obstacle for many. You have to have the right equipment and cast and crew to make an outstanding film that will in turn create a decent profit for the film makers. Without the sufficient funding, it is difficult to make a profit, if any, and the film maker could plummet into a financial down slope of trouble.

It is quite easy to see that 3D is also taking over the theater industry. “Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Paramont and Universal Pictures will finance and equip screens in the United States for 3D viewing” (Celluloid fading to Black as theaters go Digital, Nakashima). As 3D enters the playing field, it is making it harder for the film to compete. But that doesn’t always mean the film will disappear. “Hollywood is anxious to convert all the theaters into digital”, Nakashima mentions in the post. It is not always to have digital in film, because, even though you have a sharper image, it is easy to miss the texture and feel that film creates.

We will never really know what is going to happen with film making in the future. But, one thing is for sure, movies will always be a part of the world culture, and to have films we will need film makers. But with the many pros and cons of film going digital, it is hard to get the true picture behind the process that comes with making the films, and many will receive the romanticized image that is really not telling the whole story to how the film was made and what went into it. As a student of film, I love being able to transition between digital and film stock, playing with both and finding the good and bad of both. But they will always be different, which is why we will never lose the grandfather of film making technology, and learn to prosper with both the digital and the film in the film industry.

Work Cited:

1. Eisenburg, Mike. “Movie Technology: The Continuing Battle of Film vs. Digital.” Screen Rant.     Screen Rant, 2011. Web Log. 04 Nov. 2013. <http://screenrant.com/movie-technology-film-vs-digital-mikee-105167/>

            Movie Technology: The continuing battle of film vs. digital is about how many famous film makers are making the change to digital and leaving the film stock behind. Eisenburg discuses both the different aspects of digital and film and how both are great but have differences that make both unique as well as desirable. This blog is credible because it is the number one movie and TV news website and has interviews from the actual famous film makers who are in and amongst the changing film industry.

2. Nakashima, Ryan. “Celluloid fading to black as theatres go digital.” Globe & Mail   [Toronto, Canada] 12 Mar. 2008: R2. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.

Theaters going Digital is about how the film industry going 3D and the gross incomes of films that are 3D. It talks about the fading out of flimsy reds to Polaroid screenings and the top films making their debut to the 3D screen, such as Avatar. Though it is a short interview, it has plenty information on the 3D outlook of film and has interviews from some larger name industry workers working on the project. It is a credible article because it is in a well-known article magazine. It also contains valid statistics as well as interviews.

Lazy Eyes: How We Read Online

I know everyone here knows how to read online, but before I begin my blogging journey with film I have decided to give my readers a few pointers with the help of Michael Agger and his lovely little article on how to read online.

Agger states that to get a readers attention, I should use bolding to stop skimming, use short sentence fragments, bullet point, use lists, and not use puns. Well, I don’t usually write like this, but as a new blogger I want to make sure that you, my readers, will enjoy my posts and want to come back for more. As Agger says, “it is a jungle out here” and with so many online posts, blogs, and readings, it’s easy to get lost in the jumble of so many opinions and voices. My blog may not be the most extragavant of them all; it is rather simple, like me. And to Michael Agger, that is good so I’m going to keep it this way.

Now, let’s get started on the article. There has never been a significant difference in speed and comprehension of reading  between reading on-screen and on paper.  Paper only won when being skimmed. According to Agger “on screen reading is 25% slower than reading on paper (taken from another source)”. Agger follows to give some good examples of how to make reading more comfortable.

 Nielson, Agger’s source throught the article, says that blogging is a great source for generating controversy and short-term traffic, but not good for building sustainable value. Well, I for one disagree. Blogs are what our generation has become dependant on. On facebook and twitter and even instagram, blogs are being used and refrenced consantly. That is what our generation has come to and how it will be for a long while. In a way Agger agrees with Nielson.

So let’s prove them wrong. As a blogger in a vast universe of blogs, I know that blogs are here to stay, at least for now. Just like you as avid blog readers know this too. So while I am still around and blogging, I will share my opinions and hopefully get yours too and help to bring light to the film industry and modern day film.

For now it is adios, but I will be back and posting soon,

Yours truely,

Kat M.