(i posted this some time ago, but didn't realize it wasnt on the class blog...)
to answer the question of how the three films worked within and against their respective genres, i will start with Dead End. this film is an example of classcal hollywood. it conforms by including hired actors, staged sets and lighting, a script, etc. the story was also fictional. however, it slightly bent the rules of classical realism in that the story was a reflextion of the contemporary social issues. it tried to address a large scale problem with the use of film. in a way, it pioneered that aspect about films that has been seen through the years ever since.in Rain, an experimental approach was used to get across an abstract idea. since the film was experimental, there really is no way that it could stay in or go out of convention since the convention itself is a very loose one. although i did not get the message at first, i agree with what was said in the subsequent discussion regarding the film being about the power of weather and man's weak and practically futile struggle against it.in The City, a documentary approach was used to get across what was utterly an opinion. it is hard to judge how this film stayed within or without convention since the convention of documentaries did not emerge until after the film was made. by today's standards, the film was a bit biased and sensational in its approach to the subject. heavy sound design was used to persuade the audience towards the makers' point of view. again, it is a harsh criticism though since this a retrospective analysis. the film did seem to "obey" in that it used non-actors for subjects and did not stage events, or at least it seems.
2 comments:
Dead End and The City both tackled "city" issues, but used different conventions to do so. In my opinion, Dead End seemed more seamless, perhaps because it was a real narrative film with characters, a plot, a set. It was a piece of fiction that spoke about certain social issues of that time period. Because it is a narrative film, people may be more forgiving of inaccuracies, etc. But with The City, things are represented as the cautionary truth, when it's really, like you said, an opinion.
The points you make about each film is true to the film. The City is bias but you point out that at the time "documentaries" are more like opinion essays and don't have the standards that exist today. Though both films are more over fiction, though based on true events, I think their messages should not be ignored. Both comment on a social problem and that's is a part of the voice of a documentary. They are just two films that were steps along the way.
Post a Comment