1. The unconscious and conscious bias women face in the film industry is based off out of date values and norms that should  never have come about, it has stopped us all from knowing the name of the womxn who discovered syncronzied sound for film, colour for film and narrative for film. It doesn’t sit right with me that there are so many unattainable and unrealistic expectations brought on by the status quo in electing a ‘leading lady’, does it not you? The commonality of women being a certain way objectively to deserve their dream role is backward and ‘old school’ not in a cool way whatsoever– and how women are politicized in the industry hasn’t changed for the better but rather for the worse.  

1. Secondly, I wish to challenge the idea that the best films are the longest films, I get so restless when having to sit down and invest 2-3 hours in a film that leaves me forgetting parts of it due to its longevity. There are some films that must be long, but others could be shortened and their overall quality bettered.  

1. ‘Subtitles’ I want more imbedded into more films so that everyone can engage with both niche and blockbuster film if they wish to– they shouldn’t be something you have to turn on, they should just be there, always. This also brings me to ask for the canon, award ceremonies, golden globes, Emmys, Oscars and the list goes on to involve and appreciate cinema outside of Hollywood not as a novelty or token but as cinema that is shielded from broad audiences due to the culture of Hollywood voting and choosing for Hollywood to keep it ‘Hollywood’ and fiercely categorize film that’s from other pockets of the world as ‘non-Hollywood’. It is exclusive and to be frank, same old’ same old. International film needs to be more publicly awarded- just to be fair and for the representation to be real life.  

To begin this reflection, I’ll delve in on the content that’s fresh in my mind, and that is the viewing of ‘Manifesto’ in week 4.  

I thoroughly enjoyed viewing of Julian Rosefeld’s ‘Manifesto’. While the title of the film is in the singular there were 50 Manifestos delivered in the length of the film. Where this film would be placed in the canon interested me, it wasn’t a film but instead more of a video art piece- but that in and of itself could’ve made it canonical. Prior to starting this class, I had familiarized myself with some renowned manifestos- but had always found the entire read a bit tedious. I wished for some sort of art piece that could deliver these manifestos in a way that was more easily digested and understood. The art piece collaborated on by Cate Blanchett and Julian Rosefeldt provides exactly this. Their ‘Manifesto’ showed how the politics and ideologies in the archaic manifestos can have actuality in the 21st century, they showed you how important it is to contribute to society and mend the issues we face. I liked that the film was based off an original art piece in the form of an instillation in Australia- how each manifesto was presented in a more tangible manner and it was interesting to think of films being based off art pieces. I believe the aspect of the film that resonated with me the most was the delivery of each individual manifesto by Cate Blanchett, her acting is undoubtedly authentic and provokes a lot of thought in the audience with the power of her words, her voice and the fact she relayed manifestos made exclusively by men- and articulated them in a way that to compelled the viewer. Cate methodically takes on a series of situations and archetypes, In the linear version you get a sense of all the common threads of the manifestos, shades of the one person with different silhouettes. At times it was worked in opposition to what the manifesto was, sometimes it aligned with it. I also liked that there were comedic moments and darker moments, both with relevance to the monologue. The only downside to ‘Manifesto’ was that it was erred on the lengthy side for a film that makes you feel barraged with information, in saying that I feel as though the feature length time was done with intent as it mirrored the length and repetitiveness of manifestos written in the 20th century. It just was a bit hard to focus for 160 minutes and for that I wouldn’t say it enthralled me to the extent where I myself would canonize it. I also really likes the way each manifesto began with a new character, and a tracking shot from up a birds eye view, making the audience feel like they’re above the setting and looking down upon the next concept, judging the things it commented on.        

Next, I would have to say ‘Citizen Kane’ was the feature film of the semester, with that in mind I enjoyed all the feature films quite equally. The reason for my vote of Citizen Kane is due to the depth of good and bad analysis the film has the viewer regard. I worried that knowing ‘Citizen Cane’ had been voted number one on the sight and sound poll would tarnish my genuine perception of it. I couldn’t help but ask myself two questions ‘is it as good as its made out to be?’ ‘what made it deserving of the title? It was my first-time watching Citizen Cane and I know it wasn’t my last- while I stayed attentive and focused there were still elements of the film I would like to revisit. The compositional techniques in the film were remarkable, I loved the way Orson Welles used the technique of deep focus whereby there are things happening both in the foreground and background of a scene- it seemed advanced for its time and well thought out. I also loved the double exposure throughout the film and how it was used as a segway from scene to scene and how Overlapping setting shows a passing of time. Watching it as a present-day viewer in the 21st century didn’t stop me from being in awe of the cinematography. I cannot begin to imagine what the past audience felt about its extravagance in modernity. I found that reading sight and sounds ‘The Mark of Kane’ illuminated the flaws in scoring and comparing film. It was interesting to learn of Orson’s love for the simple things in life. When it came to thinking about ‘Citizen Kane’ being listed 1st for many years, I did think a lot about the idea surrounding people having to make lists, doing it in alphabetical or chronological order because it seems that orders of merit are a dysfunctional way of appraisal and celebration a lot of the time– and raised the question of why films could remain in that spot for so long, and might there be some bias?  

It’s often that we associate canon films with feature length films- short film seems more underrated even though they seem to be more difficult to produce and require the delivery of a concise story with less time to tell and show it.      

‘Dimensions of dialogue’ by Svankmajer was one of my favorites out of the handful of shorts we watched that had been shown at MIFF. For the most part, I loved the surrealism of this short. The fantastical element and nature of the subject matter was quite eye opening in parts and slightly chaotic, each time I watched it again I noticed something different. What I enjoyed about it was how it showed an appreciation for objects and the vitality of the objects in building human like figures. I liked that it represented how people interact with one another and perhaps mediated the idea of how people in society see eye to eye and seek support and comfort from one another. I pondered on the idea behind the three alternating heads and what they symbolized, one made of vegetables, the other kitchen utensils and lastly office supplies. The film followed a cycle of the heads consuming one another, spitting them out to have more clay heads formed until it was time to consume again until the original ensembles of heads were all clones of one each other. It’s very amusing, the succinct cycle of the heads marching toward each other, eating each other through a demolition of objects belonging to each head and then foreshadowing what’s next. I found it to be a great short which I know I can go back on to learn more of Svankmajer’s symbols and comments on society,  

Begone Dull Care , corals and dusty mauve combined with black and darker colours– I also really like the mixture of transparency of colour and opacity, it gives the piece a layered effect that gives the film a level of spontaneity. I went back and watched the short at a lower speed to pick up on some of the words at the end which were surprising as there hadn’t been any type throughout the short. I noticed the word ‘end’ followed by the word ‘fine’ and then the word ‘sl*t’ in red which caught me a little of guard and made me wonder what Mclarens purpose was to include that word. Following on were foreign words that I attempted to translate but wasn’t successful. It made me wonder if Norman Mclaren would have wanted the viewer to investigate the credits at the end of just see them as quick flashes of colour and light like the previous animations. I found that the short engaged all your senses and was animating visually and psychologically. The score is another aspect I thought added to the film, the three jazz pieces worked as a nice contrast to the sporadic nature of the visuals– while they remained in tempo and led the animation. I also noticed after my second viewing at the time 2:40 there was a glimpse of an object that stood out from the other shapes and line work, it seemed to be more textured almost animal like.  

‘The street’ I found to be beautifully touching. The plot was quaint and what some might think mundane, on the contrary I loved the films admit in the beauty and success of simplicity in cinema and for that I admire Caroline Leaf as a director. I feel that some denoted canonical films can fail in simplicity, unlike this short does. The street’ definitely deserved a spot in The National Film Board of Canada for its handcraft, aesthetic nature and overall message. I liked how the plot revolved around the idea of a young boy misunderstanding the gravity of death and wishing for his grandmother to be gone so he could move into her room–it gave the story some humour. I also found the plot moved at a pace where I remained interested. Most of all I loved the fact the animation was done with paint on glass and that the medium used to create it was a bit of a mystery that required further reading- I loved how everything was animated smoothly and everything blended into the next. I can imagine it would have required a great deal of patience and diligence for Caroline Leaf. Lastly the narration was done well, I liked that it slipped in and out from a first-person viewpoint which made it both reminiscent and in the moment.  

Canon Fodder: Part II

I am very glad I chose to join this studio as I feel it is a great extension from the cinema studies class I took last semester. In the past two weeks I have become more familiar with film’s past, the way film adjusted and progressed because of people like Alice Guy-blache and the Colin brothers. Prior to entering this class, I had never delved into the history of film and the constant question surrounding why a film is so great and what tropes are used to make it that way– and what is greatness and how do we recognize it to be that way and most importantly how do we decide a film is canonical. In the first week I noticed how much I liked the structure of the class, how we’d watch a film on a Thursday and then discuss it in depth the following day. Since starting this class Ive began noticing more about a film’s contextual elements and history, for example what period it was set in and how its themes attributed to discussion and analysis on how the film was produced, directed and relayed in the time it was set.  I thoroughly enjoyed re-watching Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Vertigo’ being older and more aware of film elements. I began questioning Hitchcock’s purpose as a director– and what he was trying to convey by employing scotty whose fear made him buy into a deceptive distortion of reality which lead to great calamity. What the past two weeks have illuminated in me about the film canon is that 1, a film is never the same the second time. 2, whether it’s the films that came before which matter more as an exemplary moment for future film, or the films that came after and emulated what came first. My most enjoyed film of the three was the ‘the untold story of Alice guy-blache‘ I felt slightly ignorant that I along with many others hadn’t heard of Alice as a woman and as a director. For someone who had brought some of the most integral aspects of film to the surface and had been kept in obscurity most of her life astonished me. The industry at the time was dominated by men, and all her discoveries were swept under the rug. The documentary allowed me to understand more about the underrepresentation of women directors. I enjoyed reading ‘The forgotten mother of cinema’ by Tony Fernandez as it illustrated more about Alice’s life that I may have looked over in the documentary. I also thought it was great to learn about Alice through the director of the documentary. It illuminated to me that Alice has never gained the recognition she deserved when reading Tony’s article; being an undergrad student at NYU he had never heard her name. It saddened me when Tony’s article developed into an interview with Pamela Green about the hardship Alice faced to gain validation, and to gain it still.  I liked that it followed the form of an interview and the interviewee had a breadth of knowledge on Alice’s lack of exposure. I had heard of L’Avvnetura but never got around to watching, I enjoyed the suspense of the film and mostly the use of cinematic devices to make it visually encapsulating. Cinematographer Aldo Scarvarda’s enhancement of adventure was done well using powerful tracking shots and movement of camera.  It was interesting to draw the parallel between Hitchcock and Michelangelo Antonioni‘s film with regard to the purpose of women in their films, the role they played in alignment with the period and the sexism that prevailed in cinema. After viewing ‘La’Avventura’ I found the reading to be very helpful in the way it made justifications about why the film is considered ‘great’ and how it preserved its views and carried out to be a respected  film despite its earlier reception. It changed the fundamental rules of film due to its modernity for its time.