Saturday 13 August 2016

The Cinematic Merry-Go-Round and why I am no longer just about film


There was a time when all I could talk, think and consume was film. Indeed, the cinematic medium comprised the majority of the first two decades of my life. Right up to about the age of twenty-three the celluloid and binary code of cinema ran through the veins of my body... and then, I didn't so much as grow up, but, rather, I grew outwards, I realised there was more to reality than the cinematic medium's presentation of it and I expanded the focus of my perspective accordingly.

Film was once the whole of my reality, it was the bedrock on which I built everything else and considering I was largely illiterate until my early teenage years, the cinematic medium offered me a means to direct my thinking in order to visually understand the world and express myself in it. 



I often refer to film as being my first education, an education my formal education had a habit of getting in the way off, hence why my formal education suffered. I never thought much of the formal curriculum school taught, I always proffered being at home watching films. 

Ultimately, if I were to sum up my initial fascination with film it would be that...

films offered me a clear perspective on a complex and uncertain world which did not make sense. 

My exploration into film from the age of five upwards offered me many insights to film form, filmmaking and human performance, but, far from gaining a deeper understanding of reality, I now realise that I had been actively avoiding reality in a cinematic realm of blissful nostalgia. 

"McLuhan provides the model here. He famously said that he didn't try to predict the future as anyone could do that: he tried instead to tackle 'the really tough one' - he tried to 'predict the present'. One reason why we don't see the present, he says, is the sensory closure that accepts our dominant environment, placing it beyond perception... McLuhan describes us as living in 'the rear-view mirror' - like being in a car, travelling forwards whilst looking backwards, interpreting what we see according to older experiences and categories that we think still fit. Hence 'what we ordinarily think of as present is really the past.' As McLuhan says: 'People never want to look at the present; people live in the rear-view mirror because it's safer, they've been there before, they feel comfort." 
- William Merrin, Media Studies 2.0, 2014:144

If you do not believe this statement, then you only have to look to the present cinematic medium and its continual onslaught of rebooted franchises and paths already treaded to realise the reality of our increasing tendency to live in a rear-view reality. 

Why do I frame this rear-view action as a bad thing?

Simple, how can you safely and successfully drive the car if you are always staring into the rear-view mirror?

You can't, extinction is a certainty if you are always looking backwards and this is why I am increasingly troubled by humankind's inherent nature of doing this, not just within the cinematic medium, but in human action as a whole. Ultimately, no good can come of it.

I spent the first two decades of my life staring into the rear-view mirror of our world. It was not all bad, I gained a great deal from that indirect vantage point, from an eventual interest in reading (about film related subjects) to my appreciation of reading people's body language and how it can tell you a hell of a lot more about the true intentions of their personalities than their verbal proclamations (that's silent cinema for you).

However, I gained it at the expense of actually ignoring the reality around me and how I was going to direct my place within it. 

This conclusion came when I wrote my BA (Hons) theoretical dissertation, Ways of Being: The Spectator and the Spectacle, a paper all about the complacency inherent in cinema and our very limited studies of it. 

Increasingly in the final two years of my BA (Hons), I began to see that any study of film was extremely ineffectual without reference to the larger media and experiential human landscape beyond it.

An oversight I have come to refer to as...

just focusing on the two-dimensional images on the screen. 

And by the two-dimensional images, I am referring to precisely that, the images on the screen and what meanings can be inferred from those images through the process of textual and critical analysis. 

However, the two-dimensional images on the screen are only one part of a much bigger picture. A focus on the textual and critical readings of the two-dimensional images on the screen ignores the other larger technological, cultural and experiential elements which contribute to the spectator's reception of a film.

A bigger picture.


Accordingly, in Ways of Being I very intentionally avoided a focus on two-dimensional images as much as possible; instead, I focused on the other aspects of cinema via a process of beginning my study with the spectator, from their point of view, not a disembodied objectified observer of the two dimensional images. 

Increasingly, in Ways of Being, I looked at the science and technology behind what makes the two-dimensional images possible and in a variety of different forms, which (like IMAX presentations, a key focus of my dissertation) have a huge impact on how those two-dimensional images are received by the spectator. 

However, the two-dimensional images and their textual and critical analysis are still the primary and obsessive concern of the Film Studies field; a complacent habit which is causing the Film Studies field to become increasingly redundant as a result.

And it has a knock on effect, something I have come to refer to as...

the Cinematic Merry-Go-Round.

In Film Studies you are taught about Film Theory... and that is pretty much all you are taught. A selection of pre-determined theories and ways of thinking, talking and writing about cinema... then you are let loose out into the world where you regurgitate those same theories and ways of thinking, talking and writing about cinema in relation to the films you gravitate towards... which are usually the ones Film Studies has taught you to gravitate towards.

Are you beginning to see the cycle?

Film graduates and film-centrics love to talk about the same films using the same theories and ways of thinking about cinema over and over and over and over and over again... and ultimately they never actually get anywhere new with their discussions because they are having too much fun chasing their own tails in an unending loop of regurgitation - that's the Cinematic Merry-Go-Round.

Cinema is just an attraction at a fair (and this is a surprisingly apt metaphor because that is precisely how cinema started its life), but a crucial point to realise is that cinema is not the only attraction at the fair, just as cinema is not the only form of media in the world.

And there comes a point when you have to step off of the Cinematic Merry-Go-Round and try something else out.

Certainly, Ways of Being and its blog extension, Ways 2 Interface, signifies my shift away from a focus solely on Film Studies to a focus more broadly concerned on Media Studies as a whole. 

Film Studies as a pretentious (and it is very pretentious) solo subject is completely useless, there is a hugely complex cinematic-media-ecology which exists beyond the two-dimensional images on the screen and which - crucially - makes those two-dimensional images a possibility in the first place... and Media Studies possesses a curriculum better suited to explore that wider ecology. 

It's not that I no longer watch films or that I no longer enjoy films or appreciate their discussions. However, like a first romantic relationship learned from and now moved on from, I realise now I do not need to obsess about and be uncritical towards films in order to have their presence and my own validated in the world. 

While still appreciating them, I can exist independent to film in relation to a larger frame of reference and experience. As a result, I am no longer shackled to a very limited comfort zone.

As my self-directed MTA Portfolio in Global Citizenship, Mass Communications and Business Administration demonstrates, my perspective has widened to apply my appreciation of cinema in relation to a broader field of application, as I am endeavouring to do with my Breaking Cinema podcast project.

Before films offered me an indirect perspective on a complex and uncertain world which did not make sense, but now I want to understand that complex and uncertain world head-on.

However, sitting on the Cinematic Merry-Go-Round and talking just about films as the two-dimensional images on the screen will not allow me to do that. If anything, the Cinematic Merry-Go-Round has just become a new form of idle small talk.



And small talk is not something I relish indulging in too often. 


Monday 20 June 2016

The German Expressionism Aesthetic: A research project


In the second year of my A-Levels Film Studies course, I had to complete a research project related to the topic of 'shocking cinema.'

I decided to look at German expressionistic films because I had recently discovered silent cinema and was especially drawn to the horror films of silent cinema. 

I focused on three films: The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1919), The Golem: How He Came Into The World (1915) and Nosferatu (1922).

I then produced a presentation outline, a catalogue of referenced materials and an overall evalution of putting the project together. 

I have here combined the three submission components together into one blog post. 



Research Project Presentation: The German Expressionism Aesthetic


The First World War’s influence upon the German Horror Film


Presenter:

In the earliest years of cinema leading up to the First World War Germany provided little contribution to the growing medium. Early German cinema consisted mostly of a shambles of films bought from other countries. Germany, however, would establish a shocking and lasting effect on the whole of cinema in the years immediately following the conclusion of the First World War. (Item 6) In my research project I will ask how the events of World War One influenced the German expressionistic film movement as portrayed in the German horror films of the pre 1930 period. Specific textual reference will be made to Robert Weine’s 1919 classic The Cabinet of Dr Caligari as well as Paul Wergener’s 1920  The Golem: How he came into the world and F.W. Murnau’s 1922 Nosferatu. 


Video clip: Scene with Cesare approaching Jane upon the bed (Item 1)


Presenter: 

The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, considered by many to be the first horror film and the quintessential German expressionistic presentation, aided in bringing the German cinema to prominence in the years following the Great War. The film is notable for its distorted sets produced in the vein of German expressionism, thus, promoting a very intimate film of expression that plays heavily on the emotions of the spectator. (Item 5)


Projector: Screen grabs will show various iconic images from Caligari (item 1)


Presenter: 

When viewing Caligari one is immediately taken by an all too apparent feeling of unease. The hard and broken transparency of the sets promotes a crooked and confused and unreal world one which mirrored an increasingly frustrated Germany at the time. The First World War, by all accounts, had been a wasteful and pointless war putting the world long after into a state of social trauma (Item 13). Germany especially suffered becoming distraught both through its society and its economy. Caligari can be viewed as a visual representation of the social turmoil that Germany was experiencing (Item 4). The slanted, sharp and noticeably bleak sets present a once serene Germany which now festers as deranged and dysfunctional due to the horror underpinning its disposition. (Item 11)


Video clip: Climatic scene with Francis in the insane asylum with all the characters walking distraught about him (item 1)


Presenter:

 The expressionistic art aesthetic was an attempt to place man at the centre of the universe and Caligari conveys these psychological ideologies of the War stricken world, albeit in a pessimistic fashion. Philosophical and scientific enquiry in the previous century had established further knowledge into the realms of evolution and religion. The concept of God began to diminish as mankind claimed his own destiny through the advancement of technology and Darwin’s evolutionist belief and theory. The dawn of the Twentieth century promoted only further promise in the human adventure. The Great War, however, put a stark and bleak end to this as the world was suddenly struck by unconceivable technological and human horrors (Item 9). For the first time the world saw rotting corpses riddled with bullets and barbed wire wreaked together with the stench of disease and death. Battles, such as the Somme, presented mankind being destroyed by the very technology they had engineered to better themselves. In Murnau’s Nosferatu the benevolent Count Orlok is a plague carrying figure who seeks to corrupt and destroy everything his web engulfs. As with the very nature of War and technology he descends upon the rural town of Wisborg and brings with him the initiative for change with the prospect for dominion. (Item 12) Murnau presents the dark psyche of Humanity; something which Freud had only recently brought to light (Item 7). Orlok is the embodiment of progress; Humanities hunger to survive, to grow and to indulge their desires. He is the startling figure and personification of man’s subconscious concerns and worries.  He is himself a Vampire, someone who survives only by consuming the lives and resources of others. (Item 8)


Video clip: Sequence of sailor breaking into Count Orlok’s coffins with rats streaming out; the rising up out of coffin and then causing havoc upon ship. (Item 3)


Presenter:

Like Orlok man has an urgency to consume and in what was becoming an increasing age and world of consumerism Humanity was reliant on this hunger (Item 6). A hunger that would lead humanity into a state of decay as poverty grew and the climate warmed. Orlok’s physical appearance is deliberately reminiscent of a rat; the Count, by his very nature, has become disfigured and gruesome he is the visual ensemble of Humanities nature turned in upon itself and transfigured into something destructive and something ugly (Item 9). Nosferatu, therefore, can be seen as allegorical in its conveyance of a starkly pessimistic view of Germany’s own social toil unto the rest of the world. The world around began to redevelop whereas Germany was left to rot and decay into plague and economic disaster. Count Orlok then is the embodiment of all that is resentful and angered and bleak about German society and which Adolf Hitler would soon enrage further. (Item 12)


Presenter: 

All German horror films of this period deal with an impending doom; a horrific disaster that will soon befall the characters of the narrative. In Caligari it is the madness of Francis, In Nosferatu it is Orlok and the plagues he unleashes on Wisborg and in Paul Wergener’s 1920 film of Jewish mysticism it is the Golem. In the third of three films made about the mythological figure the Golem’s origin story is revealed. The stars forebode the warning of a great calamity that will soon befall the Jewish community of the 16th century Prague Ghetto. Therefore, the Rabbi Loew constructs a saviour from clay and once installed with life the Golem is put to work. But as with all tools and forms of technology they can be used for great harm as well as great good. 

 

Video clip: Sequence where the Golem is instructed to go and seize Miriam but ends up throwing Miriam’s lover off the roof – sequence should climax with this action (Item 2).


Presenter:

The Golem is technology gone wrong; it was created to protect the Jewish community but in many ways was the catalyst for its destruction. To put it simply the Golem is a self fulfilling prophecy: Humanities urge to better themselves but the process of which always detracts something from the overall outcome (Item 10). As with the First World War this view can be starkly realised and in many ways The Golem can be seen as a reminder and warning to another Jewish community that a new impending doom was coming as a result of the First World War (Item 13).

This impending doom was present in all the early German horror films as it was a reflection, though the art form of German Expressionism, of the anxiety that Germany felt towards the rest of the world, and as result it filtered throughout the films it produced. Dark themes concerned with the mutilation of humanity and the corruption of the soul: the madness inside the cabinet, Orlok’s undying urge and the Golem’s unbounded strength. All themes that fascinated a growing world and all themes brought about because the world could not and would not stop growing. 



Research Project Catalogue



Films


Item 1: The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (Cabinet Des Dr Caligari, Germany, 1919, Dir. Robert Weine). 

This film is considered to be a landmark in film history as it is the film that gave a sudden push for German Expressionism in the movies.  It was also quite unique because of its complex narrative and explorations into the Human psyche.


Item 2: The Golem: How He Came Into The World (Der Golem, Germany 1920, Dir. Paul Wegener)
Considered to be the best version, of the three that were made around the Golem myth and by Wegener, this film is a perfect example of German Expressionism set design. It also conveys the bleakness of the German Urban landscape in the very stark and gritty design of the Jewish ghetto. 


Item 3: Nosferatu (Germany 1922, Dir. F. W. Murnau)

A perfect example of cinema at its darkest, Nosferatu is an insight to just how bleak the world was in the 1920s. The film’s narrative offers little hope and contains countless occult references throughout. This film can also been seen as a major landmark as it would greatly inspire many films to come in the following decades. 



Books 


Item 4: The Rough Guide to Horror Movies (Alan Jones, Rough Guides ltd, Penguin, 2005)

This aided greatly in my research as it presents all there is to know about the horror genre in a nut in the shell fashion. The book provided easy and coherent access to a vast and vibrant genre. 


Item 5: Horror: The Definitive Guide to the Cinema of Fear (James Marriot & Kim Newman, Andre Deutsch Limited, 2006)

A highly detailed book covering all the decades of horror cinema from its birth right up to the present day.  Providing insightful information on perhaps every horror film ever made as well as articles on issues concerned with the genre, such as the occult, this book inspired my presentation greatly.  Also Provided much insight upon German Expressionism in the movies. 


Item 6: Silent Movies: The Birth of Film and the Triumph of Movie Culture (Peter Kobel and the Library of Congress, Hachette Book Group USA, 2007)

In many ways the most definitive book on the silent cinema, produced by the library of congress, it gives an over view of the entire silent filmmaking era. This was especially useful to me as it allowed me to place the genre of horror into the context of its time. The book also allowed insightful information on the growth of the early German filmmaking industry. 


Item 7: Eyewitness Companions - Film (Ronald Bergin, Dorling Kindersley Limited, 2006) 

A reference book that essentially contains all the need to know information on films and their makers, from the birth of cinema to the present day. This book was useful when I needed to review dates or the career of a film maker, such as F.W. Murnau.



Documentaries
 
Item 8: Universal Horror (Dir. Kevin Brownlow, Universal Home Video, 2004)

An enjoyably easy introduction to the genre of horror in its youth and this informed me simply of the major films and their inspirations in the genre as well as how they would later influence other films. 


Item 9: Kingdom of Shadows: The Rise of the Horror Film (Dir. Bret Wood, Kino International Corp. 1998)

Providing a highly rich context and historical setting to the films it explores, this documentary allows the aesthetical workings behind the early horror films and the German expressionistic movement to be revealed. Through relevant examples from a whole variety of horror films of the pre-1930s the documentary determines why these films have the power to continually frighten and intrigue. 


Item 10: The Kingdom of Ghosts: Paul Wergener’s The Golem and the Expressionistic Tradition (Dir. R Dixon Smith, Eureka Video, 2007)

As this documentary was largely focused upon The Golem it allowed its aesthetic qualities to be revealed and established just how the film fits into and was inspired by the Germen expressionistic film movement. 



Audio Commentaries

Item 11: The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (Mike Bird, Eureka Video, 2000)

This audio commentary provided me with much explanation of the film’s narrative and its various links to the psychological studies of Freud and other contemporaries of the time. The commentary also went to great lengths to explain how current events, such as the First World War, would have played an influence on the film. 


Item 12: Nosferatu (R. Lokke Sciss, Eureka Video, 2000)

This audio commentary brought much light to the mysteries that shrouded the production of Nosferatu as well as the various occult intricacies that the film contains. The audio commentary also laid out insight to the inspiration for the film aside from the original Dracula novel. 



Websites 

Item 13: Wikipedia article on the First World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_one)
While largely unused, this source was imperative in establishing that my comments about the First World War were correct. The article also gave some insight to the social trauma the First World War caused around the world after its conclusion. 



Unused Material 

CINEMA - Year by Year: 1894 – 2005 (Robyn Karney, DK, 2005)

While this book was insightful the information it held was incredibly repetitive of the previous sources I had researched, therefore, because of this I did not feel that it warranted being referenced as a true source. 


A History of Horror (Eli Roth, Neil Marshall, James Wan and Greg Mclean, Total Film – issue 134, 2007)

While this magazine article included good points, relevant facts and views from the filmmaker Eli Roth I did not feel the information was providing anything new to what I had already collected and included within the presentation



Research Project Evaluation


In my research project I have been looking into the German horror films of the pre 1930s period; specifically I have been exploring how these films were influenced by the horrors of the First World War. Firstly, I think it should be said that I am happy with the subject I chose to explore. I never considered an alternative as I have quite a passion for the early horror films and because of this felt that this seasoning would add to the overall flourishing of my outcome. The sources I selected were a mixture of books, documentaries, commentaries and articles all of which I had previously explored and, therefore, could use to my advantage as they could be easily navigated and dissected for the purpose of my presentation. The process of researching this presentation also allowed me to further explore and discover and enrich my own understanding of a subject I take great joy of looking into. 

The actual writing of my presentation I found to be somewhat daunting as there were three options to pick from. However, I picked the script option as I felt it would be easier and more effective for me to lay down exactly what I would say opposed to a compressed version, which I feel would lack clarity or real insight into the subject. I am happy with the outcome of my presentation and while it can not be said that it does not explore its relative themes: World War One, German Expressionism, the German film industry the horror genre and the human condition on a vast scale it does allow, what I consider to be, a brief and insightful glimpse into these areas. I feel that various aesthetic values are touched upon in the three films I explored and in addition to this the influences from The Great War and its aftermath of social trauma and economic decline. 

The presentation is not as open ended or as eye opening as I would have liked it to be and by this I mean, while I did say enough of what I believe, I did not ask enough questions and allow the audience to explore the subject from there own view point of personal beliefs. If I had done this then it would have supplied the presentation, from the viewpoint of the spectator, with a much more vast approach as it would have opened it up for the audience to place their own ideas within it and thus engage the audience to wrestle with the opinions. However, saying this, while I did not directly or clearly address the audience to question with or against me, I think that this process would come naturally to any keen spectator with an interest in the subject I was exploring. For in my presentation many points are touched upon and yet at the end no specific conclusion is provided, therefore, what I have been saying is left open ended and applicable for the spectator to come to their own conclusion. 

Thursday 16 June 2016

A Moving Picture: Dr Strangelove's Photo Album


A Moving Picture is the second film essay I wrote for my A-Levels Film Studies course. I wrote this textual analysis all the way back in 2007 and its focus is a scene from Stanley Kubrick's Dr Strangelove or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.

I have performed some minor editing and corrections on my very early and crude writing style. I have also added screenshots from the examined scene to further illustrate the content; as well as a YouTube video of the scene itself.


A Moving Picture


A black comedy directed by Stanley Kubrick, Dr Strangelove or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb, released in 1963 is a film which shows the funnier side of nuclear combat. The film is a platform upon which Kubrick satirizes governments, politicians, military figures and nuclear war; he shows the ridiculous and, at times, almost childlike side to it. However, even for a film that is a satire, it does contain an interesting visual style which seems to have grounding and be deliberately like still photography. 

A scene which demonstrates this use of still photography very effectively is the third Ripper/Mandrake scene of the film. The scene features the characters General Jack D. Ripper, played by Sterling Hayden, and Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, played by Peter Sellers. 


The scene last for 4 minutes and 42 seconds and consists of only five different shots and has only nine cuts between these shots. This gives the scene a very slow pace, yet a great amount of uneasiness is created in this time. This is the scene which this essay will examine and this analysis will focus on the cinematography, the mise-en-scene (all that is located within the frame) and how the movement or lack of it is used to create meaning.

The scene begins with a long shot of a half-lit hallway. It appears dark closer to the camera and lighter further from the camera; only half the hallway is illuminated and this, combined with information that was supplied before in a previous scene, suggests to the spectator that the building is mostly deserted.

Group Captain Mandrake then enters the shot as he comes onto the hallway and heads for Colonel Ripper’s office. He is wielding a radio which is playing the only music that is present within the entire scene and it is optimistic and euphoric music which acts as a complete contrast to the bleak realization which Mandrake will soon get from General Ripper. 


This music is also the only connection this military and political world, which the film demonstrates, has to the outside world of the everyday citizen. Like that world and the music, Mandrake is also the only piece of hope that this nuclear war can be stopped; only he does not realize it yet.

The layout of General Ripper’s office is established through a long shot and the camera shows Colonel Ripper at his desk in the foreground and in the background the audience sees Mandrake enter the room. The cinematography of this scene is a clear example of the still photography technique which Kubrick was very skilled in and uses throughout the film. 

This shot lasts for 2 minutes and 56 seconds without any cuts whatsoever; the only movement that occurs in the shot is that created by the actors. The camera's view has the effect of a fly on the wall because that is effectively what it is as it watches these two characters interact.

The camera is positioned in such a way that it is located in the right position and for the right amount of time to allow the audience to examine and explore Ripper's office. The mise-en-scene of this scene can be interpreted as such that General Ripper’s office can be seen as a representation of himself and the slow deterioration of his mind. This conclusion can be drawn from the fact that whenever the audience sees General Ripper it is always in his office. 

 This can further be demonstrated in the way that the office deteriorates further and further throughout the film as it becomes constantly under fire and this constant bombardment and deterioration is mirrored in the way Mandrake keeps insisting for the three letter code group and by the way that the pressure of oncoming defeat makes Ripper’s self-belief slowly fall to its eventual end with his suicide: “I don’t know how well I could stand up to the torture." Also, the only other person we see in the office is Mandrake and this is symbolic because Mandrake is the only person who Ripper allows to get inside his head in the way he allows Mandrake in and then locks him in the office in this scene. 

In this scene, though, General Ripper’s office appears still relatively normal for as such is his mental state; it appears tidy and organized very much like General Ripper. Another connection is the way, like Ripper, this room has more beneath the surface. This can be seen both in Ripper but also in his office in the way there is a gun hidden under a file on the desk and later the spectator sees there is a machine gun hidden in Ripper’s golf bag. 


The office, like Ripper, has a much more dangerous side underneath. The lighting of the room also reflects Ripper’s character in that the lighting appears dim and in the room creates unusual apparitions of shadows. This gives it a very film noir quality which creates a foreboding uneasy feeling and suggests to the audience that in this scene they will see the other side to General Ripper.

One of the reasons for why Kubrick has positioned the camera over Ripper’s shoulder is because it hides Rippers eyes from the audience and in doing so hides his true intentions. For up until now the details of what exactly the cause of what has been happening are very vague, yet this is the scene which identifies the main catalyst of the events that have taken place and the events which will soon take place. 

Yet in this 3-minute shot of the film Kubrick hides Ripper’s eyes, even when ripper gets up from his desk and he is facing camera his eyes are still hidden on account of the lighting which makes them appear shadowed under Ripper’s brow. 

Yet, saying this, his actions do tell the spectator some of what is really going through his head. Examples include when Mandrake first comes in and General ripper sits slowly back in his chair and begins tapping his pencil against his desk as if this simple action represents his mind considering the next course of action. 

However, the reason for why Ripper’s eyes are hidden and for why this shot last for so long are done for two reasons. Firstly, it adds to the overall tension of the scene because if a shot is held for too long it makes the audience feel uneasy because they do not know what is happening outside of that shot. However, the main reason for why this is done is because it adds so much more emphasis to the following series of the same close-up shot which profiles General Ripper’s face. 


Due to the fact that the last shot lasted for so long this new shot as well as General Ripper’s intense face jump out at the spectator. This new shot followed soon after by one of Ripper exposing the gun, which was hidden under some files on his desk, finally makes the audience realize what General Ripper’s true intentions are as the penny drops. 

Kubrick then continues to show the full extent of Ripper’s madness through his use of still cinematography. For in this new profile shot of ripper, which occasionally cuts to a profile shot of Mandrake but is mostly focused on Ripper, Kubrick presents the true madness which the audience now sees is feeding through the clenched teeth and through the black eyes. 


Kubrick has positioned the camera so that it tilts up at him and makes him appear large and important. The fact that the camera is tilted tells the audience that ripper is not entirely in contact with reality whereas the fact that Mandrakes profile shot is level tells the spectator that he is in contact with reality. 

The tilted camera, though, most importantly emphasizes the heavy shadowing round his eyes that hold a bold intent which culminates in an unstoppable madness which shows the spectator how dangerous General Ripper actually is. This shot of Ripper appears almost as an biographical image that would be on the front page of General Ripper’s Biography for the image has that kind of composition and set-up which seems to capture his true personality which, in this case, is a very dangerous personality.

This scene, just as with the rest of the film, really could just be considered to be a slideshow of photographic images which Stanly Kubrick has taken and then cut together one after the other. 


Dr Strangelove really is a moving picture yet Kubrick uses this stillness of cinematography to his advantage because it further emphasizes the mise-en-scene of his film but more importantly creates an eeriness which completely mirrors and captures the reality of real life. 

Kubrick makes his shots last for so long because it allows the audience time to examine and to think about who really the bad guys are, who can you trust but most importantly he allows the audience time to look at what seemingly is a terrifying prospect but then shows the spectator the funnier side. 

Take the final seconds of the scene this essay has been analyzing the audience is watching General Ripper’s profile shot and his terrifyingly intense face give a speech to Mandrake but then like all good jokes it has its punch line: “The international communist conspiracy to sap and in-purify all of our precious bodily fluids!” 

Then the spectator sees just how pompous General Ripper really is.


Saturday 4 June 2016

Breaking Cinema: The Point of the Podcast



Point of view is very much at the heart of the focus of the Breaking Cinema podcast I have been developing since the beginning of 2015. It was originally its own project, but I have since incorporated it into my MTA (Masters of Transdisciplinary Application) portfolio and, after many false starts, as expressed in the 17 test episodes already recorded, I have decided on a limited-run of 10 feature length episodes which will utilise an experimental documentary storytelling format to constructively explore the subjects of film, media and psychology from a lucid and lateral, but highly entertaining and quirky perspective.

I even have a very large episode outline document written for the 10 episodes and, alongside the study component of my MTA portfolio, I am currently in the process of recording the material for these episodes.

The episode outline document.


It is called Breaking Cinema, but ‘Breaking Blindness’ would be a more accurate name for what I am really trying to achieve with it. Ignorance was a topic I explored in my BA (Hons) theoretical dissertation and ignorance in general is something which has always bothered me about human beings and the world at large. 

However, I more so have a problem with the lack of education on the subject of ignorance and how to go about identifying it and then constructively producing a positive outcome from it – this is what I am aiming to achieve with this podcast and cinema just happens to be a very good means of handling the topic. 

My own issues with ignorance are tied up with my passions of cinema – hence  the name of Breaking Cinema - and in order to thoroughly outline the mechanisms which produce ignorance, you have to unravel human psychology and confront the individual and/or collective point of view which can produce ignorance in the first place. This is the subject of Episode 1: My First Education in which I present a very personal presentation of my biases and my prejudices and how these are reflected in my preferences of cinema. 

This podcast is actually a very personal project in which my point of view plays a strong role and is heavily critiqued over the course of the 10 episodes. However, the point of overcoming ignorance is to see beyond a singular point of view, which is precisely why I am exploring and presenting other point of views as a part of the project.

Like my MTA portfolio, the podcast is very diverse in its focus of topics and it very much ties into the various concentrations of my MTA portfolio. Each episode has a different focus and format presentation, but all the episodes build on one-another and all come together to present a constructively unified exploration of how cinema and media as a whole play a very revealing, strengthening and defeating role in the human psychology of ignorance. 

The podcast draws heavily on the thinking of Marshall McLuhan, a man who was ahead of his time. I have just finished reading Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man in which McLuhan proposes that every form of human invention from the blade to the television is a form of media and that all media are extensions of the human being. In short, this is a ground-breaking work in which McLuhan puts his finger on the pulse of every technological reformation and automation we are experiencing today… and he wrote this back in the 1960s!

The podcast is very much tied up with my endorsement of Constructive Film Studies and the podcast itself is called Breaking Cinema, i.e. breaking away from cinema, so it is studying the subject of film, but starting with the spectator, not the film, and examining it from their point of view, so as to expand the scope of the discipline to include a broader psychological and subjective perspective, because it is in the psychology of human beings that we can find the underpinnings and deeper correlated complexities of the collective entity we have come to refer to as ‘cinema’. The films themselves can only tell you so much, the films plus the spectators can tell you a hell of a lot more... and this is when you start to see a bigger picture forming.


“Films are not 2D images on a screen, they are not isolated entities, they are us. They exist through us, the expand through us and they are everywhere now. They are much broader, bigger entities and if you want to study them, if you want to create them, if you want to do something with them, you can not ignore that. That’s the point of this podcast, that’s at the heart of Breaking Cinema.” 
– Me, Breaking Cinema with a Selfie Stick

Ultimately, it is about presenting an entertaining and informative presentation which will enrich and, hopefully, widen the point of view of the listener. This is precisely the reason why I am doing this project as an audio podcast, opposed to a series of YouTube video presentations, because presenting this topic - as well as the visual topic of cinema - in an audio format makes you think and visualise it in a completely different way! 

As I have discovered from the many podcasts I have listened to, it makes the brain of the listener work harder and will force them to use their own imaginings and life experiences to illustrate the presentation of the episodes. As a result of this, it will be a much more subjective and relevant exploration to the point of view of each and every listener/spectator. 

"Radio is provided with its cloak of invisibility, like any other medium. It comes to us ostensibly with person-to-person directness that is private and intimate, while in more urgent fact, it is really a subliminal echo chamber of magical power to touch remote and forgotten chords. All technological extensions of ourselves must be numb and subliminal, else we could not endure the leverage exerted upon us by such extension. Even more than telephone or telegraph, radio is that extensions of the central nervous system, that aboriginal mass medium, the vernacular tongue? The crossing of these two most intimate and potent of human technologies could not possibly have failed to provide some extraordinary new shapes for human experience.” 
- Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, 1966:263-4

There were a lot of loose threads left hanging in my theoretical dissertation and the first 10 episodes pick up those threads and tie them up as a collective entity, in regards to the wider concerns of my MTA portfolio. 

There is a lot of potential to do more episodes, but, for the time being, the 10 already outlined more-or-less cover what I want to cover. I am just focused on getting these 10 episode produced. 

Slowly, but surely the Breaking Cinema podcast is coming together!

Sunday 7 February 2016

Breaking Blindness: The [unfinished] Vision Video of Lateral Thinking


Developing the Breaking Cinema podcast is proving to be an ongoing and expansive process. I am currently finishing up writing a "master" document, 

Pulling Teeth & Breaking Blindness: The Detailed Overview & Vision Document for the Breaking Cinema Project

that is now well over 50,000 words and which details various different topics and ideas in an attempt to outline the focus of what I want the podcast to be.

I have briefly hinted at the direction of the podcast in a previous and concise blog post: Breaking Cinema: 1 blog post & 20 key points of the focus...



However, the process that has led to writing the Detailed Overview & Vision Overview master document included a first and unfinished document, 

Breaking Blindness: The Focus Generator and Vision Document for the Breaking Cinema Project 

(most of the material therein I turned into my personal website PeterOBrien.me) followed by a little video essay, 

Breaking Blindness: The Breaking Cinema Vision Video of Lateral Thinking, 

that built on and visualised some of the contents of that first document.

“Logic is the tool that is used to dig holes deeper and bigger, to make them altogether better holes. But if the hole is in the wrong place, then no amount of improvement is going to put it in the right place. No matter how obvious this may seem to every digger, it is still easier to go on digging in the same hole than to start all over again in a new place. Vertical thinking is digging the same hole deeper; lateral thinking is trying again elsewhere.”  
– Edward de Bono, The Use of Lateral Thinking, 1972:22
Lateral thinking is very much key to understanding what I am attempting to achieve with the Breaking Cinema podcast and, as such, I have gone about illustrating a lateral process of enquiring within and as the film formulaic structure of the Vision Video.

Like the similar and equally spontaneous, Breaking Cinema with a Selfie Stick, the Vision Video greatly assisted in clarifying my ideas and focus in regards to the podcast and in regards to my larger aims.

However, I will not go into too much detail about the Vision Video here, as it is very self-explanatory on its own, even if it is unfinished and very rough around the edges, I present here what I managed to make out of it.

It still needs a conclusion and I had intended to film a great deal more cutaways in order to better visualise what I was getting at, but there are still some interesting points in this very spontaneous and cobbled together thing.

It is mostly just me blabbering, but 7:12 to 13:47 is quite funny.

I might finish it at some point or make something else out of it, an idea is certainly brewing, but, we'll see...



I will keep breaking away at cinema until I get at the idea I am looking for.

Friday 22 January 2016

Film Studies 2.0 a.k.a. Constructive Film Studies


"If the study of film just becomes film history, then film will be history!" 
- Me, Breaking Cinema with a Selfie Stick
Film Studies 2.0 a.k.a. Constructive Film Studies is my endorsement for a new discipline that can best be summed as 'Film Studies with a leg to stand on.'

If you look at my BA (hons), my A-Levels and my general interest in films, I come from a traditional Film Studies background, but I have always had a nagging problem with the field of Film Studies which I touched upon in my award-winning theoretical dissertation, Ways of Being: The Spectator and the Spectacle, and which I think many critics of Film Studies can agree with - it's a discipline that does relatively little, if anything at all.

Film analysis, criticism and appreciation, that's basically its primary purpose and that is pretty much all it teaches. Now in and of themselves, on a personal basis, film analysis, criticism and appreciation are very fulfilling things to do, if you are so inclined, as indeed I am myself, they can make for a very good blog, such as this one.

“A focus on the meaningful and socialogical side of Media [and Film] Studies also means that we are required to discourage the self-indulgent and pointless textual analysis which was once central to the average Media Studies textbook. Occasionally some commentators do manage to make interesting observations about the composition or meaning of a particular culturally significant text. But requiring our students to make pretentious statements about trivial aspects of unimportant bits of media content was always a silly idea, and bound to draw sharp and reasonable attacks from critics of the discipline. The defence that this activity is parallel to what they do in Literature Studies was correct, but its often a waste of time there too. Our students should at least have an ambition to be on the front line of creative activity – not following along behind, making comments to an audience of no one” 
– David Gauntlet, Media Studies 2.0 and other battles around the future of media research

However, times have changed, we largely no longer need professional film critics, theory is only half the story which makes employment in film-related sectors next to impossible if you lack any practical experience and Film Studies as a whole has a terrible tendency to just repeat theories that were originally orchestrated thirty years ago!

Where's the innovation?

Where's the validation for the continuing existence of the Film Studies discipline?

Film Studies has accumulated a great deal of film-centric knowledge, but for what end?

I believe that Film Studies is a discipline that can do more and should do more, it's a discipline that examines an art-and-business form that is consumed by all and influences all - likewise Film Studies should be obligated to be vastly more constructive in its approach.

Ultimately, I feel that the concerns of the Film Studies discipline, which currently exists, should no longer be a discipline in its own right.

What it should be is a single module component of a much broader and proactive discipline, which for lack of a better name I have termed Film Studies 2.0 a.k.a. Constructive Film Studies...

"The Constructive Journalism Project aims to innovate and strengthen journalism by developing methods for journalists to bring more positive and solution-focused elements into conventional reporting. We equip journalists, media organisations and students with the knowledge and skills to practice constructive journalism – enabling them to produce engaging and rigorous reporting that presents a fuller picture of the world." 
- Constructive Journalism

Very little originality aside, Film Studies 2.0 is Media Studies 2.0 combined with Constructive Journalism, but with the focus starting with film.

neuropsychocinematics 4
Fancy a Piece?

Film Studies 2.0, as with the growing manifesto for Media Studies 2.0, will have a strong focus on:
  • learning through doing and personal reflection, so there will be a lot of content creation, i.e. filmmaking, not just essay writing and discussion, the students will get their hands very dirty, theory and practice in equal measure;
  • film being brought out of its comfort zone and studied in relation to the broader media canvas of other forms of audio-visual content and the world wide web, because films now exist through extended pieces of content interspersed throughout an extended network;
  • teaching by active experience, so all of the tutors will be active practitioners and creators of their own content in order to enable and nature a culture of collaboration between tutor and student, opposed to an authority and subordinate relationship, this is how you eliminate the passivity in students;
  • fusing a relationship with other disciplines, such as business and emotional intelligence, in order to produce Constructive Film graduates who can market themselves as a brand and a service to be engaged with in whatever way they decide to use their expertise as a career;
  • be open to transdisciplinary approaches by fusing a study of film with other disciplines, such as big data, psychology and neuroscience in order to uncover and correlate the larger implications of film culture and cinema...
I have always been fascinated by films, I mostly adore them, but do you know what has always fascinated me more?

Two things...
  1. Other people's reception of films and their experience of film experience (film experience encompasses an experiential understanding larger than an individual film) and not just the film experiences of film-centrics, I mean everyone! It's amazing how unoriginal film-centrics can be in their reports of films and their film experiences, a non-film-centric will give you a truly vibrant report, precisely because they have not been saturated with the dusty conventions of Film Studies.
  2. How films are embodiments of human consciousness...
Amazingly, human consciousness is still something we do not know that much about and the study of what a human consciousness is has gained considerable attention thanks in no small part to the advances of neuroscience and brain imaging technologies, but even so, it is still a mystery.

If you look at my research interests, human consciousness is top of the list and I think all audio-visual content, as embodiments of human consciousness, has something to say about what human conciousness is, how it arises and how it operates.

I also think that all those Film Studies theories that have built up and gathered dust over the years may also prove to play a part in the uncovering of human consciousness when they are actually tested and produce empirical data - that would make Film Studies into a very constructive discipline.

That's my theory and very much what I am working towards, see Breaking Cinema and my Masters of Transdisciplinary Application.

Just a thought, but something that I think is worth pursuing!