Horror films

Well, I'm not exactly sure how to begin this. Recently I've come into contact with some short animated films that were under the classification of horror. After watching them, I was honestly thoroughly disturbed. And probably not for the reason that you would first think.
In any case, this is me, about to rant, so if you're not interested feel free to move on. xD
     I think my biggest qualms with horror films (and I'm talking pure horror here, not horror plus tragedy, or horror plus comedy.) is that they have no point. Or if they have a point, it is to bring more darkness into the world, which, frankly, pisses me off. The world has no need for darker things in it. It has plenty as is.
     I've asked around lately to see what people thought the point of horror films are, and mostly I got the basic answer of, "The point is to scare people." However this is a very superficial answer, and really doesn't satisfy the question of why horror films are created.Why would you want to scare someone? And why would that person want to be scared?
There are multiple reasons why you would want to scare another person. Maybe they scared you, so you want to get back at them. Maybe it's part of enjoying that sense of brief superiority you get when that person is suddenly in your control for a few moments. I honestly don't know.
The question of why people want to be scared is equally puzzling. Fear is motivating, makes us fast, allows us to escape things that are dangerous, but why would we want that fear to come from another person? It could honestly come from some masochistic pleasure, in a sense. The centers for pleasure and for pain are very similar to each other, and it's not as far reaching as some might think to jump to this conclusion. For the most part though, all I can see is that this liking to be afraid, or wanting to make other's afraid, comes from a very animistic nature of human kind.
     This question of why do we make horror films is now expanded, after looking more closely at the basic conclusion of, "We make horror films to scare people." If our desire to scare people really does comes from a more basic nature of human kind, then horror films are made for no noble or good purpose.
      We all know that humans have a evil nature. Chiam Potok once said that "Man is born in completely darkness, expect for a small spark, and that spark is God." If we do not expand that spark, our nature's desires will take over and obliterate that small spark of goodness we have. I honestly think that true horror films come from this dark nature of human kind.
      Now, it was also mentioned to me by another friend that horror films could be useful, so as to show those who look at the world through rose colored glasses that there is a lot of pain and suffering in the world. I personally disagree completely. If we are going to show people the horror's of the world, we should do so gently. Not only that, but horror is basically a unrealistic interpretation of the world around us. It's enlarged, made to look huge and ominous, when the world really isn't like that. The world is dark, but not pitch black. Evil, but not completely. If we do not give people a balanced look, they will have an incredibly skewed view of the world and people around them.  If we desire to teach those who don't know about the world something, we should use tragedy, and then comedy. Just as this class has done. Otherwise we will crush the person's soul with darkness.
     Now, my dislike of horror films does not come from a startled, or immature response. I have seen plenty of horrific things, as well as read about numerous books on many a horrific subject. (A few summers ago I decided to read all of the books on the controversial book list.You should ask me about that sometime, it was an interesting summer.) My response does come from a sensitive nature. I do not like to see human beings in pain. Nor do I like watching as people hurt other people, particularly for things such as sadistic pleasure. If we are all created in the image of God, or even if you don't believe that, if we are all created similarly, then there is something very wrong about hurting each other. It should fall under the category of unnatural  and inhuman. And yet there is nothing more human than hurting each other. We have been hurting each other since the beginning of time.
     This, I think, answer in some ways why horror films are made. And if this is even mildly the case, I have no interest in seeing another horror film ever again. It should be noted that horror can be a very useful tool. Pans Labyrinth  and The Orphanage both have horror in them. However, the primary difference between those films and a true horror is that both of those films are not pure horror. They are horror, plus something else. In this case, horror plus tragedy. I am not saying that horror isn't part of our day to day life, or that it cannot be used in films. I am saying that I think pure horror films are pointless, and their only use would be to fuel the evil or animistic nature of human kind.
     We should be trying to cultivate better minds, to help people expand their thoughts, not crush them under instincts. As C.S Lewis once said, "Since it is so likely that they will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker." He was speaking about children's media, but this quote applies equally to this subject.
      All in all, whether or not a person chose to attend horror films is their own choice. I do take issue with them being shown in a setting where a person doesn't have a choice except to watch them. (Such as a classroom setting.) Over all, is it my opinion, that there is no merit in a pure horror film. It is a very strong opinion, and I would honestly love to hear more opinions about the subject, (feel free to leave comments) but that really is how I feel about this.
     
     Also, I found this link, I thought it was interesting.
http://shil1978.hubpages.com/hub/Do-people-enjoy-watching-other-people-die


   

Christian Riese Lassen

 

 

     I love the artwork of the Renaissance masters. Caravaaggio, Da Vinci, Raphael, etc. are all some of, if not the greatest artists the world has been blessed with. Not only their technique, but the way they were able to convey a story with their brush strokes is nothing short of amazing. However, today I would like to tell a modern artists who is also one of my favorites. His name is Christian Riese Lassen. He lives in Hawaii, and paints seascapes and related ideas.

     

 

     Christian Riese Lassen (above with a piano he painted) is a world-renowned seascape artist. He is very well-known in the U.S., and many people have seen his paintings on folders and notebooks. He is also extremely popular in Japan, from what I have been told. While people often see his paintings, I greatly encourage you to look up his gallery, as the paintings that are often reproduced don't show how truly gifted of an artist he is. His paintings show an uncanny understanding of contrast of colors, often featuring blue and purple backgrounds, with brightly colored fish and coral that pop out at the viewer. His paintings convey a sense of tranquility, while still maintaining the exotic feel that the island of Hawaii inspire. It is also interesting to note that he was once also a surfer who cracked the world's top ten ranking.

     

Transformers

Kicking it old-school.

Back in the early 1980’s, the toy company Hasbro partnered with Takara Co. to distribute a line of action figures in Europe and North America. These action figures could morph between a robot form and a vehicle or weapon form, giving them even more play options than the standard plastic or metal figurine. Takara had a couple of different lines of these toys, but Hasbro combined them into one single series and gave them a new name, as well as a TV show that served as little more than a collection of half-hour commercials for the figures.

They were the Transformers, and they were the hottest thing on the market.

Hasbro and Takara were rolling in cash, not only from phenomenal toy sales, but from advertising revenue from the television series. Kids went bananas for the latest adventure of the heroic Autobots and their battles against the evil Decepticons. Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Ratchet, Grimlock, Hound, Mirage, Ironhide, Megatron, Soundwave, Starcream, Brawl, and Ramjet were only a handful of characters kids were introduced to over the course of the episodes, though the leader of the Autobots, Optimus Prime, and his evil arch-nemesis Megatron were the most important to the majority of the episodes. The shows usually followed a very familiar formula; Decepticons try to do something evil, Autobots try to stop them, one of the younger Autobots or a human ally would learn a lesson, and the Decepticons would be defeated by the end and everyone would return to their headquarters to wait for the next episode. Still, the kids loved it, and Hasbro saw an opportunity to cash in on their appetite for more Transformer action.

Transformers: The Movie promised to rake in the dough. Kids loved the franchise, the animation was pretty cheap, and they even got Leonard Nemoy and Orson Welles to provide their voices (it was also Welles’s last film), so it was guaranteed to be a success. And it was; while it wasn’t a masterpiece by any means, it made obscene amounts of money simply because it was a Transformers movie. It had action, adventure, new faces (A.K.A. more toys to sell), cheesy 80’s rock music…

And it had the death of Optimus Prime.

Fans were outraged. Optimus Prime was essentially the figurehead of the Transformers franchise, at least in the minds of the children (and teens and adults) that the show catered to. He was the leader of the Autobots and champion of freedom for all sentient beings, and he was killed off within the first half hour of the movie and never mentioned again. No one wanted to see him replaced (the movie specifically introduced Hot Rod, a young, rebellious Autobot to replace Optimus as leader), and they made their voices heard. In fact, the death of this supposed icon, who was only a plastic and metal figurine in real life, was so impactful on fans and so outspoken, that Hasbro had the television show write him back in to appease fans.

How could a toy robot featured on a show designed to sell toy robots to kids have such an impact? Perhaps Hasbro’s aggressive marketing had been to blame; maybe they fed their franchise to so many children in such huge quantities that they set themselves up for this failure. Or perhaps Transformers had become something more than a cash cow. Maybe it wasn’t just playtime to kids anymore.

I hesitate to call Transformers a fairy tale. It has some elements, yes, such as the battle between good and evil, lessons in morality, and the ordinary lives of humans intersected with the extraordinary lives of the Transformers, but it was meant as a way to sell toys. That kind of defeats the purpose in my eyes.

That being said, I love Transformers. I have ever since I picked up my first toys and comic books when I was in grade school. I have fallen in love with its many characters and many stories, as have millions of fans across the globe. What stands out to me more than my personal love for the series, however, is the love of the Transformers fans. To this day, grown men and women still play with the toys and watch the new TV shows, and they have ever since Transformers emerged in the 1980’s. They run fan-driven conventions and websites. They love the franchise; its characters, its toys, its games, its books, its movies and TV shows are all a part of their lives.

So I can’t call Transformers a true fairy tale, or to be more technical, a series of fairy tales. What I can call it is a universe driven not just by the company that created it, but by the fans that have endured to this day. It was meant to make money and it still does, but it holds a place in people’s hearts that’s more to them than that. It even touches the hearts of the people that meant to make money off of it; Simon Furman, one of the creators of the original Transformers comics, is still an active writer for the Transformers franchise.



So, I ask you, the students (and professor) of Intro to DMA; what do you think Transformers is? Is it just a cash cow for Hasbro, or has it become something more?

Quiz-1: Princess and the Frog

This film made me laugh all the way through to the end. Everyone knows the story, but when that unexpected twist of both of them turning into animals made the film fun to watch. My favorite part was when the princess was a giraffe and the prince was an elephant. The princess tried to kiss the prince on the lips, but was kissing his nose instead. That made everyone in the room laugh.

I enjoyed all of the films that professor leeper showed us, except for the tragedy sense. But learning "outside-the-box" is a great way to find your way to becoming a great animator. But i think that this class wasn't meant for me. If you look around campus, you find students that were home-schooled, private-schooled,or sunday-school. I think that this class was made for those kids who has lived in an artificial world to realize the reality of filmmaking and life. For me growing up in community schools, have an easy time getting what professor leeper is getting at. But I'm getting off topic; Princess and the Frog was my favorite short film he has shown us.

FRANCESE Princes et princesses

A Second Response to Leeper's Challenge

 

 

     I would like to make another post on something that we discussed in class that I am having a difficult time justifying. This would be the subject of escapism and the fairy tale.

     As I recall, when we were discussing fairy tales and other related topics, Leeper said that fairy tales are good and special because, more so than other stories, they are a form of escapism. However, this past week when we were in class, he stated that Thomas Kinkade's paintings are not really much of art because they are, and I quote, "Wishful thinking." Well, I would have to say that this sounds to me to be rather self-defeating of an argument. Now, let me get this out before I continue. I am not an avid fan of Thomas Kinkade, although I do like a fair amount of his works. I am not making this post because I think he was the second coming of Caravaggio. I am making this post becasue I think it is unfair to have a double standard when talking about art. Leeper seems to say that fairy tales are better art simply because he likes them more. However, my mom would argue that Kinkade is better art because she likes him more. Who is right? In my opinion they both are. Since we can agree that both fairy tales and Kinkade's paintings are basically the same form of escapism, then if one is "bad art", then the other must be as well. However, since I don't think that most people in class would agree that fairy tales are bad art, it must follow that neither are Kinkade's paintings.Again it follows that if they are both not "bad art", then it must simply be a matter of taste and preference. Whether you like them or not, they connect with some people in a way that Oscar Wilde or C.S. Lewis might not.

     I am not posting this because I think that we should argue in class over who is a better artist, Kinkade or C.S. Lewis. However, I do think that we should attempt to judge with a somewhat less biased eye than we have been lately. I personally have not enjoyed a fair amount of the films in class, but for others they may be more interesting and meaningful. So I think it is with Kinkade.

     P.S. By the way, concerning Leeper complaining about Kinkade painting small amounts of his paintings and still putting his name on it, this was also practiced to a lesser degree by many of the Renaissance masters. We should also be aware of this point. 

American Beauty

Very interesting film! After watching the movie and reflecting on it i still am unsure weather the overall tone of was dominantly comedic or depressing. At some points i would find myself cracking up at certain scenarios; then in the very next scene feeling saddened. It is very rare to find that kind of blend in a film; the only movie i've seen that i can compare this style too is Lars and the Real Girl. Although there is a wealth of deep artistic beauty in this film the main thing that i enjoyed was the father and his attempt to regain the joy in his life. Granted he did go a little off the deep end in some ways, but the concept of snapping out of our regular routine and living life while we can really stood out to me. I felt inspired to apply the old phrase Carpe Diem to my life similar to the father in the movie; just different in the sense that i will attempt to live each day to the fullest for the glorification of God. I love how a very non-Christian film was able to inspire and challenge me to walk stronger in my life as a Christian.                                                         

A Response to Leeper's Challenge

 

 

     Professor Leeper has asked us to respond to him when we have issues with what he has said or in his manner of teaching, etc. This blog post is meant to explain one of my serious issues with the mentality I think some people are becoming susceptible to in the class, namely, the fact that we must remember our audience.

     Let me start by stating that I do realize that Leeper's intention in the class is to get the ball rolling in terms of showing students films, art, etc. that they have not been introduced to. This, I believe, is a worthy goal. Many people are all too ignorant that these types of art exist. However, I also think (and have myself witnessed this), that just because something is new, oftentimes people suddenly forget everything else they have known and in their jubilance forget the conseuences of such thinking, whether these consequences be good or bad. This is where I wish to introduce my argument that although there may not be anything inherently wrong within the art we are watching, we must realize the audience that we wish to address in the future. As the picture I posted states, you must consider not only whether your content is worth sharing, but also whether the audience will care. This is where I think many people get lost in their jubilation at seeing something new. If you were to show most of the films in class to the people back home, do you think that they would likely care about the films after seeing them? We would be tempted to say that it is because their tastes have not become as refined as ours. I do not necessarily think this is true. Why did Jesus' parables work so well, despite being so simplistic? Because he understood the simplicity of his audience. When I hear students say that they want to make something like the films we see in class, I cringe because I fear that they think that these films will connect with many people and have a phenomenal chance to make tons of money or at least be well known. This simply is not so, because many people will not understand nor care about these type of films, whether they are good or not. The excuse the makers of such films often give is that ,"The audience simply does not understand my film." My response would be, "Do you understand your audience?"

     Films, although this is admittedly a broad generalization, tend to fall into two categories. Mainstream and what I will call "art house" (this includes foreign films). We must realize that depending on what audience we would reach, this should determine what type of films we make. If we wish to touch a select few (or work in a more experimentl manner), who often have what I will call higher/different faculties of mind and taste, art house is the way to go. However, if we wish to reach a large audience, we will likely have to make a mainstream film. If you are called to make art house style films, so be it. If you are called to make more mainstream films, so be it. I say that we should try to mix elements of both. When it has worked, it has had a large impact and can make tons of money (think The Dark Knight). This is a difficult task, since human nature tends to gravitate to extremes in any given situation. I think that it is the means that we should strive for, if we wish to make both good and impactful films.

     To close, I would simply like to reiterate that I understand why Professor Leeper is doing what he is doing. However, I think that since we are in a class that is designed to help us tell stories, perhaps it is worth discussing in class not only what the films we watch are about, or their meanings, but what audience are they attempting to reach, and more importantly, what audiences are they reaching. If we do not discuss this, we are in danger of falling into day dreams about how the kinds of films we wish to make are going to affect an audience. An audience that we often imagine is a lot bigger than it is likely to be be in reality. After all, perhaps the most important part of a story is the audience, and if you don't have an audience, then what you do have is a problem.

Steel Tears

Truth is, I'm a sci-fi geek at heart, and toss me a sci-fi film complete with a touching, almost cliche story but top it with stellar special effects (using completely open sourced software programs to do so mind you) and you'll have me hooked. I stumbled across this pretty cool sci-fi short today, and fell in love with it right away. I fell so in love with it, I'm gonna share it on here.

Steel Tears was made using Blender, which is very similar to Maya. It's a complete open sourced project experiment in regards to programming, however, for shooting funds (ie practical funds) were provided through the Blender Institute and pre-dvd sales. But basically, the budget for the project was $0.

We start out seeing a spaceship taking off. Then,viewers are introduced to a couple, Doug and Celia standing on a bridge in slightly futuristic Amsterdam. They're in a fight, and while their fight almost seems petty, they both have different dreams.

"Look Celia, we have to follow our passions. You have your robots and I just want to be awesome in space!" -Doug 

But it comes down to Doug telling Celia that her robotic arm is scary.  *There is horrible acting employed in this scene, for your warning.

Now we jump forward to 40 years in the future, when robots have taken over and mankind seems at a severe loss for...well anything. A group of scientists are hiding away using computer technology to reconstruct the sequence of Celia and Doug on the bridge in the past. Doug of the future is using the simulation to send him back to the past to make things right with Celia, because Celia was the one who created the robots that are destroying mankind.

"You broke my heart. You forgot me on earth..." -Celia

There's some pretty cool discussion topics that I think this movie can spark. Anyway, watch and -hopefully- enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6MlUcmOul8&feature=player_detailpage

......Well, you see what happened was... AKA the Ganesha Festival

Devotee with their faces covered with colored powder dance in an alley during a procession on the ninth day of the ten-day-long Ganesh Chaturthi festival in Mumbai September 27, 2012. Ganesh idols are taken through the streets in a procession accompanied by dancing and singing and later immersed in a river or the sea symbolizing a ritual seeing-off of his journey towards his abode, taking away with him the misfortunes of all mankind. 

"Ganesha Chaturthi, the great Ganesha festival, also known as 'Vinayak Chaturthi' or 'Vinayaka Chavithi' is celebrated by Hindus around the world as the birthday of Lord Ganesha. For 10 days, from Bhadrapad Shudh Chaturthi to the Ananta Chaturdashi, Ganesha is worshipped. On the 11th day, the image is taken through the streets in a procession accompanied with dancing, singing, to be immersed in a river or the sea symbolizing a ritual see-off of the Lord in his journey towards his abode in Kailash while taking away with him the misfortunes of all man. All join in this final procession shouting "Ganapathi Bappa Morya, Purchya Varshi Laukariya" (O father Ganesha, come again early next year). After the final offering is made, people carry the idol to the river to immerse it.

The whole community comes to worship Ganesha in beautifully done tents. These also serve as the venue for free medical checkup, blood donation camps, charity for the poor, dramatic performances, films, devotional songs, etc. during the days of the festival." ---hinduism.about.com/


Okay, I know this isn't either of the two things we are supposed to discuss and it isn't my quiz yet... but I found this and had to blog it! I just want to note the looks of happiness and excitment of those in the foreground as they march for their religion! That is a love for who they are and for the One(s) they worship!

When I saw this picture off of Yahoo, It really intrigued me to read more about this holiday. And the more that I read about it, the more I realized it is eerily similar to both the resurrection of Jesus and Baptism.  I am not sure if that is just my long church history bubbling up in me, but hello?! Being immersed in a river to take away the misfortunes (sins) of mankind?! Jesus and the cross?! Us being baptized?! I find it extremely intriguing that something like this can so similarly mimic the Christian/Jewish tradition/religion.

This picture just reminds me of those I know who have been baptized and of my own baptism.  I love watching full body baptisms because of their faces as they rise out of the water.  You can see that ss they go down there is this tension in them.  A kind of suppressed excitement and expectation as they enter this symbolic cleansing of the soul.  Then, the soon-to-be-new-creation enters the water.  The audience holds their breath for those couple of seconds as they wait.  Then, the new Creation comes back to the world, gasping for air.  And as soon as that initial breath enters their lungs, this uncontrollable smile of joy hits their face.  This face that shows their insatiable love of God has now been proclaimed to the world by this symbolic cleansing of the soul.  And the crowd just goes wild! At least, that's how it is at my church! Most of the crowd is on their feet crying and yelling and clapping in excitement.

This excitement is what I see in this picture.  They get it! They realize that through this they are forgiven of man's misfortunes.  And I love how they symbolically show that in their festivities by helping those who need help.  I think this is such a beautiful way to celebrate ones problems being taken away from them and being forgiven.  And I thought I would share this with you guys! :)

A Pleasant Change

I remember watching clips from Pleasantville in class and was rather intrigued by it's concept. Without having seen the entire film before, I was at first confused about the black and white that was sometimes color. It didn't take long to convince myself that I wasn't going crazy therefore, the color had to hold some sort of significance. Thankfully, I was right, but I still didn’t fully understand until I checked out the full movie from the media library and watched it with my roommate.

At first, the movie seemed to be promoting sex, especially to teenagers. Even the synopsis on the back mentioned ‘what would happen if 90s culture met 50s culture?’ That makes a great point—our culture doesn’t have a problem with this issue. To Christians, it’s still black and white (pun intended) because the Bible mentions it countless times.

An interesting observation I draw about that fact: Why would Paul write to the early Christians about sexual purity if they weren’t struggling with it? Don’t you think that if they had been sexually pure that he would have spent his time focusing on some other problem area? This means that it’s always been a problem humanity has struggled with, even during the 50s.

Of course, towards the end of the movie we see that color is “earned” when people step out of their comfort zones and push against the old way of doing things. This idea can be both good and bad, which is why it’s interesting to talk about. In the example I have already referred to, changing a culture to think that a morally wrong action is socially appropriate is a bad form of change. Changing something from right to wrong seems completely insane, but it happens.

There are many good example of change, and this message is generally advertised because things in life change constantly and we need to accept that fact of life rather than wish everything was back the way it was. Personally, I tend to like changes in life better than other people, but it still can be hard to accept change that doesn’t seem to go my way, and that’s a matter of selfishness.

There is so much that could be said about this subject that I don’t know how to continue, so I’ll just end with that

Akiane

I want to introduce an artist I've been cynical of for years. When I first picked up her first book and began reading, I thought 1) She couldn't possibly be real; there was some sort of weird
work at play here and 2) I was right away extremely jealous.

Akiane Kramarik is a child prodigy in both painting/drawing and poetry. She works roughly two hundred hours on a given painting; paints anything from a horse or swan to Jesus with his arms lifted high. The really, really awesome thing about Akiane? She does all of this for God.

Grr, more terrible quality. x_x Anyway, this is a painting of Jesus talking to God when he was 14 as according to Akiane.

Akiane was born in Illinois to a relatively simple family. She has four brothers and two parents who don't pursue any kind of art. At the age of 4, Akiane had a life changing experience (I need to read the book again, I can't remember exactly what happened, but I'm pretty sure it was something along the lines of a dream) that brought her to God. She hadn't gone to church previously, neither was her family religious.

Her family became saved as Akiane painted more and more images for her Creator and became more and more zealous in proclaiming the good news about God.

This piece is entitled, "Returning Home". Excuse the bad quality (it was hard to find a pic of this one). This is probably one of my favorite works of Akiane's simply because there's so much in it, and it's so beautiful.

What really made me cynical of her is how she comes about her inspiration for images. In her book, "Akiane--her art, her life, and her poetry" Akiane talks about being blessed with visions to paint. This isn't the case for each of her paintings, but, for example, in this painting, "Prince of Peace", Akiane was given a vision of Jesus. She explains more in her book, but she'd received some sort of detailed image and felt she had to paint it. So at age 8, so did just that.

Needless to say, I've decided to not try and understand these visions of Akiane's, and I've decided that it's better to just admire her incredible work. It's beautiful, and every single one of her works leads back to the Creator who gifted her with her incredible, awesome talent.

Please go check out her website! Her pieces are incredible, and read the descriptions too because they are amazing.

http://www.artakiane.com/

Quiz 1

MAN BOUGHT A HOUSE

This short clip really did a good job of showing how those things we think to be absurd are actually intensely meaningful. The idea of a man marrying a rat is just plain stupid....but this film makes it look beautiful. How can it do that?

It behaves like a comedy; the man has a new house but this rat is annoying him, so he tries to kill her but in doing so ironically wins the love of the rat and they are married. However, this is not just something to laugh at and be done with...I find its absurdity beautiful. Why? Honestly, it's a bit of a mystery, but if I had to give a reason I would say it's because, in the moment you see the rat undergo a change of heart, it reveals something ultimately human in nature...something that makes us actually delight in the turn of events. I think our desire for love from others runs very deep, and we have been taught that we have to earn that love. But when our efforts fail and we fear rejection, then comes this beautiful, absurd, comedic thing called grace. And that is precisely what goes on in this film. The rat has this deep, stuffed desire to be loved, but is not really expecting to receive it. So when she sees that the man is being nice to her (even if it is a mistaken assumption), that desire is brought out into the open because it finally has a place.

Ultimately, I think this is a parable of the Gospel...we do not deserve God's love, but He gives it to us anyway - and it looks absurd to us, but we accept it nonetheless because that's the reality we find ourselves in, and it's just what we need.

Small Hands

I was torn between World of Glory and Small Hands. World of Glory had an impact on me, because seemed like I totally disregarded "communion scene"and the importance of it. I think the reason I belittled that scene was because I was a Christian, ironically. I thought I knew about it all. However, I am going with Small Hands, because it is the kind of animation that I'd like to make someday. It is emotionally very subtle. The subtleness of the movie submerged me into it. All the emotions in the movie was conveyed to me that I watched several times after the class. The fact "death" or whatever do set us apart. The harshness of the nature in the midst of a quiet ordinary day, but our instinct to continue to love and to preserve humanity with in us was the lesson for me. Lastly, the fact that we are all alone eventually. 

Duck Soup

This Marx brothers film really awed me. It was so funny that it kept you laughing the whole time. But, in the section of Duck Soup that we saw in class, most of the things the characters were doing was really ridiculous stuff. How did they do it? How did they make such dumb antics so funny? How did they make repetitive actions of switching hats and holding each others' legs not get cheesy and boring? Was it just because everybody else in the room was laughing that I laughed so hard? Or was it really genuine gut-tickling humor that was the product of comic genius? Maybe in reality it was just as cheesy as the stuff they show on Disney channel. Maybe it just seems better quality to us today because it's from an older era, from the good old days.

Quiz: Buster Keaton/comedy

I really enjoyed the day we learned about comedy and when we talked about buster Keaton aka (Joseph Frank Keaton VI ). I think the video we saw it really inspired me because I find myself as a comedian but this guy put his nuts on the line comedy literally! I still to this day cant imagine how he did what he did I think we all need comedy in our lives as much as we need tragedy and fairy tale especially tragedy when you see everything in a story has gone wrong. At the end it takes a turn like the dead of winter then seeing that first dandelions it fills you with hope and comedy like it was in "Lord of the Rings" at the end you think Frodo and Sam are finished they throw the ring in MT. Doom and save middle earth every good story especially like that one needs comedy or happy ending my question is: Is a fairy tale without a happy ending really a fairy tale at all? and that's how ill end this thank you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlkdtS8OFlA

Quiz 1 - "The Fridge"

So I know I've posted a similar post to this, but I still am intrigued by "The Fridge" on many aspects. My major point with this film is just how we as Christians and even all human beings, sit back and watch terrible things happen without doing anything about it. I mean, there are many of us that do help out with certain situations, but with other certain situations, will we act on it? Just like in the film, if you saw a kid being forced into a fridge, would you help out and stop the situation? Honestly. For me, I would try to do something to help out as best as I could. Then come to the fact where that we don't want any harm to come to ourselves. Is this selfish, or is it just to protect ourselves? This still leaves me questioning. Just like the people who hide themselves in their houses, we sit back to protect ourselves because we don't want to get involved. We need to step out of that house/protection and have faith at the same time to help and do as Christ would. Christ calls us to serve in one another in love as he did.  I read some of a writing piece by Gene Taylor that I'll quote - "Romans 12:1-2 encourages Christians to be "living sacrifices" for the Lord. That is accomplished when we start living for the Lord and doing those things His will would have him do. One of the things the Lord wants His disciples to do is to serve others. He illustrated and emphasized this in John 13." Exactly. 

1 Peter 4:10 

10 Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms

Just by this verse alone, we shall use what we have to serve God and others. He gives us so much, so use that to serve others. Now going back to the film again, the firefighters at the end, are we those people who help out but don't act quickly? Do we tend to let things happen and follow up on as if we were going to help? Don't wait to act. I feel we should be that person who can jump on any situation and provide. 

Quiz 1: Grey. Lots of Grey.

 

I bet you've never seen faces this happy, before. Ever.

World of Glory. Wow.

I don’t know how many of us were ready for it, but I sure wasn’t; at least for the very first scene. I guess that was the point of the scene, of course; to shock us and to open our eyes to a legacy we’d chosen to shove under the rug and forget about. Outside of Schindler’s List, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more depraved and horrifying act carried out on screen. Some horror films may try to be more horrifying with their explicit gore and visceral depictions of death, but they don’t carry the weight that the memories of Hitler’s policies do, nor the true horror that those policies brought upon millions of innocent victims.

But as I watched the rest of the film, I still felt gripped by the director’s disturbing picture of what could be considered everyday life. I felt the way I felt when I read George Orwell’s 1984 for the first time. There was a sense of foreboding throughout the whole movie as I associated the cold, grey world that the film’s protagonist lived in with that of the world Winston Smith lived. At every scene change my mind whispered “Thought Police” and I would panic at the sight of a man in a black suit standing anywhere on the frame. At any moment I expected the mustached man to be nabbed and dragged away for Thoughtcrime to be thrown into the gas van himself like the people in the first scene.

I knew that there was something different about the scene in the church, though I had to watch the entire film to understand the significance of our hero’s conversion. And still I expected the Thought Police to arrive at any moment, right till the very end of the film, to take our hero away. I was more focused on the parallels between Orwell’s Oceania and the setting of the film than I was on the true message being conveyed by the director.

But maybe that was what the director was getting at; that our world has become Oceania and Orwell's nightmare. Where 1984 warns us of the dangers of losing one’s political freedom through communism, World of Glory warns us about losing our personalities through the ignorance of our past and the lack of concern for our present and future. If we just let things happen without caring or acting, then we doom ourselves to these grey, half-dead lives.

Seriously, read 1984 if you haven’t already; the first couple of chapters alone will be all you need to draw major comparisons between it and World of Glory. 



Quiz 1 By DentonWilliams

One day in class we watched a few minutes of a motion picture named Pleasantville.  The film stars Tobey Maquire and Reese Witherspoon. Twins, David and Jennifer get zapped into a black and white television sitcom called Pleasantville, due to a magical remote from a mysetrious man played by Don Knotts.  For the sake of getting home David and Jennifer must play the parts of the characters that they have become and hope that the repairman will get them out.

However  the they realize that the Pleasantville characters do have feelings, desires and urges, they just didn't know that they existed.  Through the discovery of sex, reading books and romance, some characters start changing colors and by the end the whole town is colorful.

This movie speaks of the beginning of the feminist movement where the housewife doesn's stay in the house anymore.  There is a sense of prejudice between the black & whites and the coloreds.   There is a sense of being confined into a town that never changes and nobody leaves Pleasantville.  Also there is a sense that there is such thing as free will in a world where everything seems to stay the same but with the introduction of a few things free will is discovered.  Of course with free will comes violence which quickly appears.

Quiz 1: you guessed it!

• How could I not post about World of Glory? We watched many short films, but for most people, this is the one that stuck out the most. 

• World of Glory literally slaps you right across the face, kicks you in the groin and then beats your body down with a stick as you lay there helpless... Okay not literally, but you get the point. This film doesn't hold back, first scene, suffocation of naked people... WHAT. I may be a little over dramatic about this, but it's the truth, this film had me shocked. 

• I couldn't even focus on what was going on for the rest of the film, the first scene clings to your soul. Later on however, I was able to analyze what happened, and I really think the director is a genius. Even still, there is a subtle creepiness about the rest of the scenes, like the one in the picture I posted... Eerie. World of Glory, you will not be forgotten!

The Lunch Date

There were many films that made more of an impression me than this one, but I picked Lunch Date because I saw it last year in a short film screenwriting class. Now that I watched it again, I am ready to give some thought.  (I also just learned it won the Oscar for best short subject.)

What I love about Lunch Date is its use of very little dialogue. It could easily be a silent film. In many regards it is shot like one. Black and white, old style music, an art deco train station. It was made to transcend a time period, although by no means is it a period piece.

The use of expression works perfectly. You know exactly what the woman is thinking. You discover the story with her, right up until the reveal. The wardrobe is also very important to the story. You know exactly the type of woman she is and where she comes from, and the man is obviously a bum. I especially like the tag still attached to his hat.

In so little time their relationship develops and matures with exactly no dialogue. This is executed perfectly. It's also nice to see the woman get over some of her prejudice. We know she'll have a hilarious story to tell her friends when she gets back.

Maybe what's most fascinating to me is how we watched to people eating salad and found it interesting.

Quiz Response

The film that has stuck out in my mind most thus far, is "Bunny". I watched it several times, to try and get the ultimate understanding of what is going on in the film. After watching it, I have drawn my own conclusions on what I think they filmmakers are trying to get the viewer's to see. I felt like the moth, was supposed to be an angel. The moth kept pestering Bunny, constantly hitting the lights, and hitting into the picture frame of Bunny and her husband who was dead. Near the end of the film, the moth ends up falling into the pan, and Bunny cooks it into the cake. This kind of made me wonder if maybe Bunny's husband died in an accident like that, and was cooked and eaten. Then, the oven opens, and it is like a  completely new realm, and Bunny goes into the oven (which you probably aren't going to do unless there is something of serious importance there for you), and she gets moth wings and ends up flying away with a bunch of moths (maybe angels?). Then, at the very end, you see the picture of her and her husband and the shadow of moth wings behind their picture. That is why I came to this conclusion about the moth being an angel leading her back to her husband, or maybe it could have been her husband's spirit trying to reunite with her again.

World of Glory

If I was going to talk about a film shown in class that really, really made an impression on me, it would have to be 'World of Glory' by Roy Andersson. Just that first shot, of the people forced into a truck, comforting each other as they know they will face the inevitable, a slow, agonizing death, naked, everything eeriely quiet, apart from a woman's hysteric screaming...it haunts me to this day, much like the protagonist of the film.

Someone is screaming!

That chilling moment never leaves you. It escalates as the truck doors close. As the engine revs. As the exhaust begins to flow out. As the exhaust is redirected into the truck. As the truck begins to drive in circles, almost in rhythm with the rising screams, which quickly fade back into silence. Even when that scene passes, you can't get over the initial shock. In fact, I wasn't even able to fully concentrate on the rest of it, I was so disturbed. Slowly, as things progressed, I was able to understand what the latter part of the film was, how it coincided with the that opening image, but in the end, the thing that stood out the most was that first glimpse into the film. That glimpse into terror and guilt.
This is definitely something I will watch again, and it will be a whole new experience.
Even so, I will never forget those screams.

Art and your self

Does the world have something to teach us... from a evangelicalism point of view. Sometimes we might think and people might think that we work for Christ as an Obligation. When in truth there are atheists who have no God and still wake up each morning and they have a mission for them selves to do. People think its just self motivation well that might be half. Some might say its Christ working in a way you cant tell what he is doing.

Having to know is a bad feeling cause you will get board and there is nothing to learn. If you sometimes know all and you learn from mistakes and get extra help then you are doing something right.

JESUS  :)

Quiz 1: That movie

Just from the title I think you all know what I am about to blog about.

In this movie. The oppening scene I was feeling sick, felt like leaving the room. But if i did i thought I would look like a wuss and a wimp. I was not feeling good. And that scene was running through my head. I had nothing else to analyze and or to process. I was feeling sick to my stomach.

Just the intro scene

After this scene I had nothing to think about. I was in shock and terror. I felt bad for them, I was pissed out of my mind about what these people are doing. Hopefully this never really happened in the concentration camps in Germany.

After this I did not notice or was able to think. I was confused about then why did they cut to a person talking about his house. Then friend. Then mother. Then church. The death. I did not notice alot till after we had a class discussion on the movie. 

And to be honest I dont really watch any horror kind of films so thats probably why is was disturbed and shocked. But this class is carving and molding me to think and understand life and art better. Mostly Art.

Quiz:Lunch Date

This short film was great! Watching the shift of the older woman's attitude as the film progresses forces a smile on your face. When we first meet her in the story she is the epitome of a upper class woman who wants nothing to do with the "common people" who were scattered about the train station. However, once she is forced to mingle in their midst for a few hours she is confronted with a gruff man who frankly disgusts her. The comedic way in which they begin to interact, eating a salad, is a heart warming visual representation of humanity. The fact that we are all equal in God's eyes and no one person is any better than another just because they might have more stuff or hygienic practices. This film speaks volumes about how we can be so quick to stereotype and turn our noses up at people we considered different or lesser than ourselves. I hate to sound cliche but this film spoke to me saying we should not be so quick to judge one another. The fact that this film could be absolutely hysterical and also pack such a powerful punch on the topic of humanity makes it such a great story.

Quiz: Bunny

There are plenty of thought provoking movies we've watched thus far in Leeper's class. Probably the most powerful for me was Bunny--strangely enough. The reason why "Bunny" is so cool for me because in the end the bunny was reunited.
I'm going to take this to a deeper level for a moment; the persistent moth that keeps bugging the Bunny is sort of like God when I'm closing him out. I see Him as a pest and toss Him out the window or try and throw Him out of sight.
"Not now, can't you see I'm busy?" It's something I find myself saying way too often to God, when really, I should be excited to have Him want to be "bugging" me at all.

It's clear throughout the entire clip that there was something missing in the film that made life for the Bunny completely empty and dull. It wasn't until the moth mystified the Bunny into following it that the film shifted from empty to bursting with life, and the Bunny was reunited --with it's best friend and love once more.
That is the most beautiful part of this film; the rediscovering of love and unity after the painful gap that's kept the bunny feeling the echoing loneliness.

Quiz 1 and Bunny

 

 

     For my post concerning the quiz, and a piece of film that we have watched in class, I have decided to go with Bunny. The reason I chose this film is because I think that there are many pieces in the film that are quite interesting and open to interpretation, even though the film is more well known for showcasing the lighting effects that were the new standard at the time. Firstly, I just want to say that I have never seen a moth so realistically done using CGI. It was stunning. Having got that out of the way, let us concern ourself with the ideas present in the film.

     I think that the film overall is a story concerned with the beauty of death, the tragedy of life, and in a way mirrors the Resurrection concept. This is first indicated subtly by the fact that the moth is always looking for the light, symbolizing in my mind the idea of always looking for something more in this life, but never quite being fulfilled. The old rabbit also mirrors this when she looks at the picture of her dead husband, who was her fulfillment in many ways. The Resurrection theme shows up after the old bunny rather viciously kills the moth. The moth is resurrected, and, it would appear, forgives the old rabbit for her cruelty, and comes back to take her home. (Notice how the moth whom she treated cruelly comes, rather than her husband. Allusion to the idea of Jesus saving those who treated Him cruelly, anyone?) The final scene of the many moths flying towards the light indicates heaven, where all men are fulfilled, and we no longer must concern ourselves with always feeling empty on the inside, or being treated poorly by others. It also brings the story full-circle, since it is very similar to the opening scene.

Art's place in the Church

Art is a beautiful. I’ve seen more art in this last month at college then I have in my entire life up until then. I like it, but it makes me wish I had seen this much art my whole life. Such richness, such depth, such raw spirituality. This is something I had not experienced as a child for the most part. In the last year I have come to discover the wonders of art and as I said have been exposed to so much more here.

The church has no art. Gone are the days of commissioned paintings in beautiful cathedrals. There are no more stained glassed windows behind the alter. Even the churches themselves have changed from the beautiful palaces of worship from the Gothic era to now being built only for efficiency. The Church has forsaken beauty for function.

If we worship a beautiful God, should we not worship him with the beauty He gives us the talent to create? He is a creative God. He has made us a creative people. The Church has forgotten its role of leading the world in art; in setting the bar for good art. We no longer see art that was commissioned by the Church. Much of what Bach composed in his lifetime was commissioned by the Church. Now we are told by the Church to stay away from music because it is Satan’s tool to corrupt us. Something about that seems wrong to me. God commands us to worship Him with music, but somehow that is wrong?

The same is true with every artform. We shy away from art unless, as Dr. Leeper happily points out, it is Thomas Kinkade. The first man to be filled with the Holy Spirit in the Bible however was Oholiab. He was an artist who God chose to design the tabernacle. He sculpted the ark, he embroidered the curtains, he made all of the instruments of worship. Without Oholiab, there would have been no worship. Now, however, we keep a distance from art, thinking it not appropriate for the Church.

This is my favorite Caravaggio painting and a great example of art in the Church: