Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

Welcome Wednesday: Siân Thom: Can music make or break a film?


Hey Guys,


Wednesday is the day I introduce a guest onto my blog and let them write me a post. They will be posting something about their area of knowledge and each week I will try and have a different area.

Sometimes I may post a response to what the guest has written.

This week I have Siân Thom guest staring on my blog.

Siân is my fifteen year old sister; she is going into the second year of her GCSEs. Afterwards she wants to go to college and focus mainly on acting and drama. Her ambition is to end up as a well-known actress.

This is her guest blog and underneath is my response:

There isn’t one film that I’ve watched that hasn’t had music in it, when films were first created as silent movies they weren’t really silent, yes there was no speaking but there was music and depending on the music you could tell the mood change in the film, even though the music had no lyrics or that it was just a pianist sat under the scene with a sheet of music that he had to play all the way through the film, the tempo and the pitch would change to notify the audience that the scene is meant to be funny or sad. In modern day films, there is speaking in the scenes but it still boils down to the music chosen by the producer, director, music producer or whoever puts the music in. A film would not be a film without music it would just be words and pointless actions with the audience not fully understanding what is going on in one scene to the next.

The right music makes you feel more for the characters, it makes you believe what the characters are saying, and even if the acting isn’t great you can still feel happy, sad, angry or excited by the right chose of music in that scene.

When I’m watching a film and a sad scene starts to play out, it’s not the acting or the words that make me cry really, it’s the music, the slow sad music that emphasises that it’s a sad scene and that is what sets me off crying. The other night I was watching Life as we Know it [(2010) Directed by Greg Berlanti and staring Katherine Heigl] and [slight spoiler] when the little girl calls holly mummy there are little chimes in the background, and I know that isn’t that much of music but just that little can make a scene, I think if the chimes weren’t in that scene I would of cried as much or realised the full extent of her calling holly mummy. I always listen to the music in films, if the music is right for the scene and connect with the film then it will make the audience feel like they are part of the film. But there are other cases where the music does not suit the scene what so ever and if it’s an important scene then the whole film is ruined in my opinion.

I watched a film a few years back with my brother and the music starting playing in the background and both Matt and I cringed because the music didn’t suit the scene or the film. So for the rest of the film we couldn’t get into the film or relate with the characters because, it was an important scene that explained what the whole film was about and it was ruined by a few minutes of music played quietly behind it.

Also sometimes in a film they can play the music too loud so you can’t hear what the characters are saying, this mostly happens more on the television in series or one-off shows. If a pilot is coming on T.V and you watch it and the music is too loud so you can’t hear what the characters are saying so you don’t know what is going on in the whole episode then it is unlikely that they are going to get a series because that pilot determines whether they get their series and if the public aren’t getting into because of the music then it won’t be back on our television screens for another 6 episodes.

So in conclusion if the music isn’t right for the scene the film is over. I mean don’t play an upbeat song if someone on the screen is crying and don’t play a slow sad song if someone has just received some really good news. The music has to flow with the words and actions of the film otherwise it’s doomed from the start.

My Response:

Well My response is going to contrast rather a lot in comparison to my sister’s views, but this happens quite a lot so I’m sure she will understand.

First of all, there is a guest post I wrote quite a while back discussing music and mood.

http://malikagandhi.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/a-film-director-in-the-making/

So my response to what Siân said.

Music and sound works in two different ways in film, there is diegetic and non-diegetic.

Diegetic: Music or sound that the character can hear. It is happening inside the scene and effects the character in a certain way

Non-Diegetic: Music or sound that is placed over the top, almost like a score. It tells us, as an audience, how to feel in that scene.

My argument is why, as an audience, should we be told how to feel? As my sister said it does add to the tension to a scene where the monster is about to jump out. It adds to the sadness of that part where the guy breaks the girl’s heart.

I agree with my sister when she says that some films and TV shows over-use non-diegetic sounds/music and it can cause the show/film to lose believability, the audience start to lose interest. Some films even get to the point where there is only non-diegetic music and too much action. The action therefore means nothing; the audience does not know how the characters feel.

My belief is there should be more diegetic music and sound so the audience know how the character feels which shows that when something bad happens to the character, they are affected more because they understand that character fully.

I’m not saying the use of non-diegetic music is wrong and it should not be used because I have seen some good films that use non-diegetic very cleverly and leave the audience in suspense a lot of the time, but my question is: could you do this with diegetic sound and music?

My final point is that music affects us, just as it does a character in a film and people who say music is not important have not had the experience of discovering what it can do for you. 

If you want to know more about Siân, then check out her Twitter: @Ginger_Thom

If you can think of any films where the music does complete the whole film let me know. Also if you can think of any films where there is not much music but the film is still brilliant then please comment. I really want to know all your opinions on this one.

If you have any comments or views on what has been discussed then please place them below. If you would like to appear on my Welcome Wednesday blog then let me know.

Stay safe,

Matt 


Tuesday, 14 August 2012

Talk Tuesday: That Can't be the End, Can it?


Hey Guys,



We all need something to talk about and discuss, we just like to gossip.

This is the part of the week where I choose a topic to discuss over and talk about; I view both sides of the argument and then place my opinion.

Anybody can join in with the discussion, just post a comment and tell me what you think.

This week we are going to discuss the climax of films. So a slight note before we start.

THIS BLOG WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS THROUGHOUT.

Last night I watched Gone (2012) directed by Heitor Dhalia and staring Amanda Seyfried. All together this is a very well thought out and planned film. The Character Jill is a very troubled individual and has obviously gone through a lot.

The story is about Jill and how she is convinced her kidnapper has returned when her sister mysteriously disappears without any trace. The police think that Jill has gone crazy, as she was sectioned and the fact they the first time round they did not find any evidence that backed her story.

So if it was such a good film why are we talking about it today? Well today we are talking about the climax of films and how some can be unexpected and others are not so climatic.

For example in Gone we go through a journey of people that the kidnapper could be, at one stage we believe it’s a neighbour, maybe it’s the cop, she can’t be making it up, etc. but at the end the man is only some guy who saw her in the coffee shop once. This film has taken all this time to build up to the reveal of this kidnapper, and after all that, we’ve not really seen him much or know anything about him.

An example of a good climax, even though not the one I wished for when watching the film, was in Buried (2010) directed by Rodrigo Cortés and staring Ryan Reynolds. This film is about a U.S truck driver, Paul who is working in Iraq. His team get attacked by a group of Iraqis. He wakes to find he is buried alive in a coffin. He does not have many items and it's a race against time to escape.

All the way through the film we think that maybe he might get out, a few times we think it is unlikely, but drawing to the end it is a very close call. The rescue team are on the phone to Paul, they believe they are close and for a moment we feel as if he has been rescued, not for the first time, and then suddenly they tell us they have found somebody completely different. By this time it is far too late.

The suspense and tension that this film builds from beginning to end is outstanding, and they follow it through to the end, there is no anti-climax for this film. It shocks and surprises and I did not see it coming at all.

The point Todays blog is to discuss which films we think are Climatic and worth watching, and which films lead us on but, unfortunately, let us down at the last hurdle. If you have any films you would like to talk about then leave a comment below.

If you agree or disagree with anything mentioned then please comment and share your views.

Stay safe,

Matt

Monday, 6 August 2012

Mull-over Monday: The Use of 3D in Film


Hey Guys,

Welcome to Mull Over Monday, This is the day where I pick something that people discuss and have different opinions about. These things will normally be to do with film or writing or something that obviously affects my life directly.

So this week we are going to discuss the use of 3D in films. Is there any difference between a normal 2D film and its 3D version?

Well I still remember the first thing I ever saw in 3D, it was not a big blockbuster film or anything you would watch at a regular cinema. Instead it was a documentary on at an art/theatre gallery.

This 3D documentary was about fish, and the depth of the oceans. It informed of creatures far in the undiscovered parts.

Now this documentary was probably one of the most realistic, most Three Dimensional film I have ever seen. The creatures and fish seemed to swim, float and glide out of the screen towards the audience.

In places this film even shocked and scared the audience when certain fish and creatures’ jaws splashed out of the screen.

Ever since seeing this realistic 3D documentary/film I have struggled to find 3D entertaining or realistic. Either Directors don’t use enough of it, or they only use it in certain places.

I find that some ‘3D’ films just do not reach the expectation. Certain films say that they are 3D, but instead they have a few minor scenes with depth of perception and not much else going for them.

Think about it this way, why pay around £8, plus your expensive cinema food, for a 3D film which has one pathetic 3D moment in it? That is quite a lot of money for something that doesn’t come out of the screen.

When 3D is done right though, it can be amazing. A lot of people and reviews enjoyed the 3D spectacular Avatar (2009) by James Cameron. Now my own view: The story line; not the best, The Idea: Great, The imagery: Amazing.

Another film where I thought the 3D was great was The Final Destination (2009) by David R. Ellis. Even though once again the story was the same as the rest, just in a different location and with different characters, the objects that killed the characters did actually seem like they flew out of the screen in certain scenes.

So 3D is not always a waste of time and money. Some films are great and spectacular, but I don’t think we are all the way there yet. We need to focus on impressing the audience and making the feel as if everything is flying towards you, Instead of just having the depth of perception.

If you have any opinions of 3D films that were great or others that were not worth the ticket price then please comment below and discuss your views on the growing trend of Three Dimension Films.

Stay safe,

Matt

Monday, 30 July 2012

Mull-Over Monday: Do special effects and CGI, improve films, or make them worse?


Hey Guys,


Welcome to Mull Over Monday, This is the day where I pick something that people discuss and have different opinions about. These things will normally be to do with film or writing or something that obviously affects my life directly.

So something to think about and discuss this week is special effects and CGI. Do they improve films or make them worse? How much is too much?

I’m going to view my opinions and obviously, as normal, if you have other views on this topic then let me know underneath.

This may be a very one sided view on special effects and CGI because unfortunately I’m not really the biggest of fans, but I shall try and be as open minded as possible.

This subject has come about due to the fact that lately I’ve been watching a lot of comic-book films, such as The Amazing Spiderman, The Avengers Assemble and The Dark Knight Rises, (which I will be reviewing on Film Thursday blog.)

So first of all what do you class as special effects? Well truthful anything from a simple lighting effect all the way up to your big explosions and CGI creatures are known as special effects, SFX for short.

So in some ways without SFX a film would never work. There would be no light or sound SFX and it would just look extremely boring and unappealing. So SFX are needed to make, and improve a films quality.

The question is: How much SFX and CGI is too much? For me this is simple, when you start creating things that don’t look realistic at all and spoil the film; that is when you know you’ve gone too far. Take King Kong (2005) Directed by Peter Jackson. This remake of an old classic used so much CGI that there was not one shred of truth left by the end of the film, all relationships with characters were uninteresting and 187 minutes of pure CGI just was too much.

Looking through the archives over at TotalFilm.com I looked through what they rated the worst CGI film moments and why, so I thought I would give you a little taster, so you can see what might be a step too far with Computer Generating.

Here’s the link if you want to check out all of the list, or the scenes themselves:


20: CGI Sharks – Films such as Deep Blue Sea (1999) and Shark Attack 3: Megalodon (2002) have some of the worst CGI shark attacks I’ve probably watched. There is just no realistic sense to them at all.

17: The brawl in The Matrix Reloaded (2003). Total Film gives a note saying ‘The Golden Rule of CGI: Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.’ This is an extremely good rule, and some directors do need to learn this one.

 12: The Scorpion King: The Mummy Returns (2001). When The Rock turns into a half scuttling Scorpion is one of the worst, most unbelievable things I’ve seen. This is when you lose faith in sequels and franchises.

9: The Lions and the Infected: I am Legend (2007). All the street clearing and lighting SFX in the world could not improve these hordes.

6: Troll Attack: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (2001). Just watch a clip of the troll, not only do all the actors look really young in comparison to how they are now, but that troll is just unbelievably unrealistic.

1: Well we’ve mentioned this once before. I had a feeling that King Kong would be in this list. The whole medley of Giant Apes, Stampeding Dinosaurs and other over the top creations. Not only are the badly made, but badly dubbed also with the wrong Sound FX.

Now I’m not saying all CGI is bad, because sometimes there are some great moments created. What I’m saying is, sometimes the SFX teams might take things a little too far, get a little bit carried away and just decide that they will have a children’s drawn troll or way too many bomb explosions.

A film should not be about the action, the CGI and the SFX. It should be about the story and the relationships built between characters and audiences.

If you have any views on this, let me know and keep the discussion going.

Stay safe,

            Matt

Monday, 23 July 2012

Mull Over Monday: Are Films to Blame For Actions?


Hey Guys,

So after having numerous problems with accounts and emails and other things, all linked into losing my phone. I have finally got myself back on track. I’m back making YouTube Vlogs, I’ve got my writing going and been playing around on Photoshop for different covers and so on. Now I’m back on here and here are some of the things I’ve created and made whilst unwillingly being away.


Welcome to Mull Over Monday, This is the day where I pick something that people discuss and have different opinions about. These things will normally be to do with film or writing or something that obviously affects my life directly.

This week the topic is going to be quite a delicate matter. Now if I say anything that you don’t agree with, then just remember it is a discussion and is open to other opinions, but let’s remember to try and keep it above board.

The reason I’m saying this is a tricky, risky subject is because it is quite fresh in the news. Now I know I’m from Brittan and obviously this news does not affect us as much as the people in America, where it happened, but I thought I’d talk about it all.

If you haven’t guessed already I want to talk about how media blames films for Certain actions. Now this has sparked back up again due to the recent shooting at a premiere of Batman, The Dark Knight Rises, in Colorado.

Now I am not going to act as if I know all the facts or act as if anything I say is right, because it affects America, and not really anywhere else. Yet the media blames the film itself for the shooting.
Seeing as the film had just been released over there, it was a first premiere and that nobody had yet seen this film, already puts this theory into a bit out of place.

Secondly the gunman himself, not the most reliable of references I understand; but still, said that it was not down to the film, or religious views (as some media teams are saying) but still will not fully explain why.

Now if it was down to the film, then why just in one place? Why just one guy? Why did he burst into a random screen? Why did people in the opposite screening, which was a family film, also get shot by bullets he fired? None of these make sense.

This is not the first time that media itself has blamed a film for creating violence or destruction. We British have had a few cases, maybe not as rough and devastating as this case, but still not all that nice. Where children have gone to see a film out of there age range with their parents and then allegedly gone and re-enacted that scene and managed to hurt or kill people in the process.

First off, if you are a parent and you think that allowing your child of, let us say, fourteen to go and see a film rated 18 (not sure what that is over in USA) then you are asking for trouble from the start.
Secondly the group I’m talking about, who apparently saw the film Child’s Play then tied another child to a railway track. I have seen this film and for all I can remember I can truly say I don’t think there was a scene where this happened. Tell me if I’m wrong because it was a while ago.

Yet because these kids had seen this film, it got blamed. Some films get blamed for things before they are even released or seen by audiences. Films such as Blade Runner and Natural Born Killers where not even allowed to be shown in certain places due to the media hype, saying that they were bad films that glorified violence and would lead to problems.

These media nuts do like to take things out of hand and twist the real reason behind things. They like to do it with everything and they have gone and done it with the Batman film. They have made both the cast and crew feel bad about the film and given it a bad name, when it was not even the fault of the film.

Some media teams apparently even made up the rumour that the killer called himself ‘The Joker’. Now me wanting to be a director and want to create films that make people think about things would not understand why the Media would make up such lies and rumours?

 These lies will not sell more papers, more than often people like to know the truth about these situations. They want to know what went on; they don’t need to be told that if you see this film it will lead to violence.

If it was true that films affected your actions and that people truly go around killing people after seeing a film or due to seeing something, then don’t you think we would have many more problems such as these? There would be utter chaos every time somebody brought out a new film.

As I said at the start, I’m not pretending to know all the facts or saying that I’m right and all Media is wrong and judgemental and should be band. I am just viewing my opinion, and that is that the Media have twisted this out of proportion, as normal when something like this happens, and they have made people scared. They should be making people calm about the situation, shouldn’t they?

If you have any views at all about this incident, or any others that Media blame films for, let me know. I want you to update me and I want you guys to get chatting about this. Do you truly think that a film could make somebody act that badly? Or do you think the Media have it all wrong? Are they just blaming the film because they don’t know the real reason? Let me know what you think.
If you’ve been to see the Dark Knight Rises, then let me know what you think also.

Stay safe,

Matt


Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner