I married a witch and other screw-ups

Moving back in time now from the sci-fi of the 1950's to the pre-war magical innocence of the 'screwball comedy' and an analysis of the brilliantly whimsical film, "I married a witch" (1942) with Veronica Lake, and Fredric March. Directed by René Clair.

The screwball comedy

The screwball comedy has been described as
"the sex comedy without sex", but it proves that the
ripping off of the protagonists clothes is not a necessary ingredient to create entertaining films. The genre came as the rigid, censorial production code of the 1930s put an end to topics such as adultery, homosexuality, and drugs being openly addressed on the silver screen.  The term 'screwball' was invented by the pitcher Carl Hubbell in the 1930's. "It's a pitch with a particular spin that flutters and drops, goes in different directions, and behaves in very unexpected ways" and the 'screwball' films work in exactly the same way: they are unbalanced, erratic, irrational and unconventional.

The films are built upon a sarcastic and witty script with humour driven at the ritualistic humiliation of the male. It is predominantly a female genre, containing an eccentric heroine who saves an anti heroic man from a rigid lifestyle; satirical targets are usually men who work in the law or journalism so their intelligence can be criticised. The great depression and the transition from silent to sound film fuelled the popularity of the 'screwball' genre with an increased fascination of the upper class way of life. The new 'talkies' allowed witty verbal interaction between the protagonists; all which contributes to the farcical battle of the sexes. On the screwball comedy James Arge states:

"It's nuts, it's illogical, it's impossible, and it's hilarious. It's also abundant with endless comic variations, opened to unexpected situations, and primarily grounded in danger."

~http://www.moderntimes.com/screwball/index.html

"I married a witch" (1942) 

This film is a perfect example of a 'screwball' comedy but with an added twist: using witchcraft as another way to humiliate the male. Jennifer (Veronica Lake) and her father Daniel (Cecil Kellaway) are burned at the stake by the puritan Johnathn Wooley (Fredric March) who buries their ashes under an oak tree to imprison their evil spirits. Jennifer puts a curse on the Wooley men and their successors so that any marriage that a Wooley man enters into will be doomed. Time fasts forward to 1942, when lightening strikes the oak tree and the ghost spirits of Jennifer and Daniel are released ready to get revenge on Wallace Wooley (also played by March) and ruin his arranged marriage with his fiancé Estelle Masterson (Susan Hayward).

The film was produced by Paramount pictures but released on the 30th October 1942 by United Artists. Although there is on screen chemistry between Lake and March in reality they didn't get along. Pre-production, March said Lake was "a brainless sex-pot, void of any acting capability" to which Lake replied that March was a "pompous poser": and so, the games begin.

In the opening credits one can hear the wedding theme in the musical score by Roy Webb, hinting on what is to come. The film begins with the burning of Jen and her father at the stake but the scene is made comical by announcing an intermission within the film making reference to the fact that it is a film 'show' and not reality. Then comes the montage, which provides a perfect overview to the Wooley family problems over the succeeding generations. This montage shapes the romantic story or anti-romantic story as it shows the curse in action when the Wooley man would prefer to go to fight in the civil war of 1861 than stay with his wife.

Ironically as Wooley is making a speech about "a new...beginning", lightening strikes the oak tree. Although all the audience can see are two clouds of smoke, the essence of the screwball wit is still present as Jennifer states she wishes she had: "lips to whisper lies, lips to kiss a man and make him suffer." Dark: but then a man did burn her at the stake. Jennifer is not seen in body form until her father sets fire to the purposely named Pilgrim Hotel and Wooley has a strange inclination to go inside to 'save' her. This scene switches from being feminist to slightly chauvinist. Although Jennifer does lure in Wooley with her voice, she waits for him to save her and carry her out showing her as a typical damsel in distress. She seems satisfied with her new body but questions Wooley "would you have preferred me brunette?"

Lake is highly sexualised throughout the film by showing her wearing just a coat sitting with her legs on full show or wearing Wooley's pyjamas. She asks countless times whether Wooley finds her attractive, highlighting that she still wants to please her man. She comes out with witty line after witty line, sliding up and down banisters emphasising a sexual innuendo and comically speeds up time when Wooley is giving a long, dull speech on the meaning of true love. However as the film progresses Jennifer seems to lose her authority over Wooley, especially after she drinks the love potion and actually falls in love with him.

In the final scenes there is screwball irrationality and mayhem: Wooley is trying to get married but keeps getting interrupted by Jennifers' father Daniel who is trying to get his long awaited revenge on the Wooley family; Jennifer is begging her father not to frame Wooley for murder; Estelle (Hayworth) is trying to get married to Wooley and having to walk down the aisle several times before eventually giving up; Daniel gets arrested for drunken behaviour; and to top it all off theres a wedding singer screeching the beginning of "I love you truly" repeatedly. Awkward, to say the least, and the audience is left wondering whether anybody will get married. Yet, true to screwball fashion, Jennifer does marry Wooley in the end and uses her witchcraft to help further Wooley's career. They have two children, a boy who resembles Wooley and a little girl resembling Lake.

"So my wife's a witch, every man has to make some adjustments."

"I married a witch" (1942) may have been Sol Saks' inspiration for "Bewitched" (1964-72) TV series, but this fact still remains unclear. However this series was one of my favourite growing up: they used to play re-runs on channel 4 on Friday mornings and I could watch the episodes again and again.

Not only does the witch, Samantha (Elizabeth Montgomery), have the flowing blonde hair and the deep blue eyes of Veronica Lake but she also doesn't tell her husband, Darrin (played by Dick York 1964-68 and then Dick Sargent 1969-72) that she is a witch until after the marriage ceremony following which the hilarious battle of the sexes begins again, for 8 full seasons. "Bewitched" is a televised representation of the screwball comedy. By the 1960s feminist ideals were becoming more popular but most television shows still had idealised family values and so underwent harsh censorship. Saying this, "Bewitched" is the perfect example for showing these new male fears about women's changing sexuality and evolution of domestic institutions in a subtle way. Samantha is the doting housewife with the 'adjustable' husband who tries to lead a life without witchcraft but with a witty edge:

Darrin: "First your my wife, then you're a witch, and a wives' place is with her husband." 

Samantha: "Oh good. I guess that means you want me to play golf with you this afternoon."

The series started out as success, but after a long run ratings dropped as production started to use cheaper looking sets and recycled scripts. In addition many actors were changed and replaced:

"with two Darrins', two Louises', two Gladyses', and ten Tabithas, fans of Bewitched prove to be a tolerant lot. only time will tell if they will ever be able to accept another Samantha..."  

 ~ http://harpiesbizarre.com/tabstory.htm

And alas, they definitely didn't with Nicole Kidman in "Bewitched" (2005). But a strong message that both "I married a witch" (1942) and the "Bewitched" TV series portray is that:

"Love is [definitely] stronger than witchcraft"

~ http://beyondfiction.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/i-married-a-witch-review/

So natural (earthly) order is restored, for a while. Coincidentally, as I was researching for this blog entry I found that someone on youtube has combined pictures taken from "I married a witch" and "Bewitched" and put them over the song Witchcraft performed by Frank Sinatra. Brilliant:

It came from Outer space

Writing about the re-release of the "Titanic" in 3D in my previous post got me thinking about the history of 3D cinema and where it came from (better late than never, I suppose). After the hype of James Cameron's "Avatar" (2009), which has now beat his "Titanic" as the biggest grossing film, 3D cinema has been brought back to the forefront of people's minds, and since 2009 many more films have been released with a choice of 2D or 3D. There is no doubt that in the new millennium  3D has really made progress with the development of 3D television (3DTV) and even 'glassesless 3D' but is it all just a fad (again)? 

3D Cinema audience by Anne Breathwick

It is a well known fact that 3D cinema only stays around for a couple of years at a time. It definitely does not come from 'outer space', but from the simple idea to presenting two offsetting images (one to the left eye and another to the right eye) merging to provide an illusion of depth. Stereoscopy (or 3D imaging) was popular in Victorian times. But the first 3D feature film? "The power of love" (1922). The film was directed by Nat G. Deverich and produced by Harry K. Fairall. It is the earliest known film in which anaglyph glasses were used but unfortunately the film footage has been lost. Due to the great depression at the end of the 1920s and 30s 3D was not seen as a necessity. The next big 'boom' for interest for 3D was in the 1950s, also known as the 'Golden era' of 3D.


How 3D works. In simple terms. 

The two most popular types:

Anagylph: (shown left) two images are superimposed in a light setting through two filters (one red and one cyan). The audience then also wears glasses with coloured filters in each eye which cancel the filter colour out. "But as it is, it is a terrible strain on the eyes, resulting in prolonged physical discomfort almost to the point of nausea."

Polaroid: (right) Edwin H. Land founded the Polaroid Corporation in 1936. Two prints (each carrying either the right or left eye) are synchronised using an external system motor on a silver screen (or a screen made of other reflective material). The images are separated by polarised glasses worn by the audience. Polarisation reduces the glare that anagylph gives off. Most of the films released in the 50's were released in Polaroid 3D.

For a more detailed explanation oh how 3D works, see here. 

"It came from outer space" (1953)

This film is a well known 3D film. Directed by Jack Arnold, starring Richard Carlson and Barbara Rush. It was the first 3D film that Universal Studio's released. The film is one of the many popular sci-fi films made in the 1950s, at the height of the cold war, as it shows unknown creatures from foreign lands attacking the homeland (USA). The film is set in in a town called Sandrock in Arizona. It is a typical small American town in the south where nothing ever happens and, as the narrator quotes, people are "sure of the future." There is the omnipresent narrator framing the story and right from the beginning the 'alien' synth external diegetic sound which is repeated throughout, reminds the audience of the invasion of foreign bodies. The main characters are the 'man of science,' John Putnam (Carlson) and his girlfriend, school teacher (who never attends school because she is to distracted by Carlson), Ellen Fields (Rush).

Together they represent classic American star-crossed lovers who have to try and convince the police and the community that something alien has landed. The film builds suspense by using a fish-eye lens so the audience can see from the aliens perspective and tracking shots are also used to show vast areas of isolated desert adding to the suspense. Additionally, for the aliens to blend into society they live inside the body of the human, also stealing their clothes, thus completely stealing their identities. The American government was highly preoccupied with the notion of communist spies infiltrating the US government (see McCarthyism).

Unlike some of the other cold-war era sci-fi's produced, It came from outer space shows the main character reasoning with the aliens, trying to compromise: but in the end, to save his world, John is forced to blow up the mine where the alien ship had landed and in doing so fulfilling the audience's expectations of annihilating the foreign invaders. Richard Carlson then went on to star in "The maze" (1953), another 3D blockbuster in the Golden age of Sci-fi (and also 3D).

Here is the trailer for "It came from outer space":

So can 3D ever overtake 2D? I believe the answer is NO, and why should it? Even if the technology becomes more advanced I believe that nothing can come close to the feeling of actually visiting the place itself (which is what 3D hopes to achieve). A screen has size dimensions (height and width) and the spectator can never fully immerse into the screen, so why try and force this merger? I admit, 3D was fascinating for a while, and it does work a lot better on animation films: but, once again, a few years down the line and the popularity of 3D cinema seems to be fading.

My heart will go on...in 3D

Moving forward, from the Kony saga that I focused on in my last posts (an issue which is still under scrunity especially after the Jason Russell incident yesterday) to an overview of the films regarding the Titanic. As many are aware, "Titanic" in 3D is going to be released in April 2012 to commemorate the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic. James Cameron's beloved classic film, was originally released in 1997 starring Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. It won 11 Oscar's in the 1997 Academy awards, took in $600 million in the US, and grossed an extrordinary $1.2 Billion abroad, making the it the first film to reach the $1 billion mark in global threatical distribution (p. 76, Klinger, B., "At the edges of Hollywood: New distribution, exhibitions and reception contexts", in Cook, P., The cinema book, third ed, Palgrave Macmillian; 2007). I'm sure that it's re-release will take in even more money, but probably due to the extortionate ticket price to see a 3D film.  In preparation to go and see the film i decided to start doing research on the history of the Titanic. I found that although the wreckage of the ship wasn't found until 1985 people had been making films on the subject for 73 years with the first film released just months after the ship sunk with "In nacht und eis" (1912).

Some historical fundamental facts of the RMS Titanic. The ship collided with an iceberg on its' maiden voyage from Southampton, UK to New York, US: it sank in the North Atlantic Ocean on the 15th April 1912. There had been more than 2,000 passengers on board, but due to board of trade regulations the ship only had enough lifeboats for a third of its passengers. Built in a dock in Belfast from 1910-11 it was to become known, mainly due to the result of media speculation, as unsinkable. Thousands of passengers and crew members lost their lives and it is one of the biggest peacetime maritime disasters. Disasters, like the Titanic, don't just happen, they are a chain of critical events and it is the timing of these 'events', how they come about and why, that make the Titanic a 'marvellously dramatic subject for a motion picture' (Alfred Hitchcock). This is why films about the Titanic have transgressed important cinematic progressions: from the silent era to sound with "Titanic: Disaster in the Atlantic" (1929) the first Titanic talkie, to the use of the subject to aid war with the Nazi Titanic in 1943, and now it's crossing over from 2D to 3D. Two Titanic films in particular have caught my eye:

"Titanic" (1943) was directed by Herbert Selpin and commissioned by the Nazi's Minister of Enlightenment and propaganda, Joseph Goebbels in 1942. The narrative was written by Walter Zerlett-Olfenius. The film was originally going to be used as propaganda against British bureaucracy although when it was eventually released (1950) the propaganda element was removed.

Channel 5(UK) has recently made a documentary on the production of this film "Nazi Titanic: Revealed". The actual film itself turned out a movie disaster with the death toll 3 times bigger than the amount of people who died on the Titanic in 1912. In the beginning Selpin demanded:  87 shooting days, 9 huge sets, and a 20ft replica of the Titanic itself: this was already a huge ask to the Nazi government during war time. The film cost around 4 million reichsmarks and before the film was finished Selpin made a mistake and denounced the government and imprisoned (where he was either murdered or committed suicide). The film uses the metaphor of the ship to represent a negative perspective on English society. The president of the White Star Line, Sir Bruce Ismay is a manipulative and controlling man who will not let the Captain slow the ship down, then once the ship is sinking tries to weasel his way onto a boat though bribing. There is cheating, stealing, lying and really the only strong figure in the film is the German Officer, Herr Peterson who will not marry a woman for her money and also rescues a child. He is the representation of the German government.

However, perhaps the most controversial part of this film, is not the very fictional telling of the story of the Titanic sinking, but the use of the SS Cap Arcona. The boat (seen in the image below) can be seen moving from the left to the right of the screen during the film to show the progression of the Titanic.

The ship hits the iceberg 45 mins into the film but the sinking scene was removed, as by the time the film was completed in 1943 the Germans were losing the war and Goebbels realised that the devastation was exactly what the German naval officers were facing. The film ends with Ismay being put on trial for his crimes but he is acquitted. Ironically, Heinrich Himmler, to avoid being interrogated for his war crimes, committed suicide on the 23rd May 1945.  Himmler used the SS Cap Arcona (and two other German naval ships on the Bay of Lubeck) as the final destination for some 10,000 concentration camp victims for the 1945 Death Marches. On the 3rd May 1945 the ships were attacked by the RAF. Then, to add to misery, some SS Officers were waiting at the bay's shore to kill any remaining survivors. Around 5,000-6,000 prisoners died in this final act of war and thus ends the tragedy of Selpin's Titanic film.

The second film is "A night to remember"(1958). It is a British production filmed at Pinewood studios, and has to be my favourite Titanic film. It was directed by Roy Baker and the screenplay by Eric Ambler based on the 1955 book by Walter Lord. The film opens with the christening of the Titanic with the smashing of a bottle of champagne (this never actually happened in 1912) but this highlights that the film is going to be about the Titanic itself rather than the personal narratives surrounding the story.
                                                   

Blueprints of the real Titanic were used to re-create the sets and the fourth officer of the Titanic, Joseph Boxhall and ex-commoarade Harry Grattidge helped with the account of events. The film begins by showing the hype before the voyage and the departure from loved ones at home. The film portrays the unsinkable Molly Brown, as she insists on going back to rescue remaining survivours. Baker also uses several visual representations throughout the film leading up to the sinking, for example the close up shot of the waiter filling a glass with ice and the child's rocking horse. Unlike Selpin's Titanic, Baker represents the separation of the classes in a better way as they are blocked from entering the lifeboats and he shows the mixture of nationalities on the ship as well.

There are several other clear visual elements throughout the film which aim to make a statement as the ship is going down: the scene where Thomas Andrews is facing the fireplace in the first class smoking room and looking at a painting by Norman Wilkinson, "The approach to Plymouth Harbour", a painting which represents the hope of arriving to the new world and which did perish as the Titanic went down; the second image is of the old man holding a young boy in his arms as they both die showing that no one was safe from the horrors of the Titanic.  Although "A night to remember" (1958) has been classified as a realist film and uses detailed construction of the ship and digital effects, some of the scenes of the ship are very similar to the ones used in Selpin's "Titanic" (1943) as seen here. The film ends with a strong quote: "Everything that was humanely possible has been done" as the 700 or so survivors board the SS Carpathia.  Scenes from "A night to remember" were also used for Phil Collins video- Hang in long enough (1989).

Finally I arrive at James Cameron's more recent "Titanic" (1997). This version of the film uses the foundations that Baker built but combines this with the development of new technology and the discovery of the wreckage itself in 1985. In addition he represents both the upper and the lower classes instead of focusing only on the upper, and even in some ways even idealises the lower class, which was never done in earlier versions as the class separation was still strong at the time the previous films were released.

Here is the 2012 trailer:

The forensic analysis of the ship in Cameron's version is very different to the use of paper diagrams in the previous films and the computerised ship is very different to the toy boat used in the 1912 version of the film. But all of the films use similar components:  a shot of the crowds of people at the ships send off, there are ice warning sighs, the temperature drop is noted, there is the confirmation of 'mathematical certainty' that the ship is going to sink, one woman falls through the space between the Titanic and the lifeboat and finally there are  musicians playing on deck to boost the morale of the passengers. These repeated events form the basis of the Titanic story. After the disaster the board of trade regulations changed its law and increased the amount of lifeboats on board.

When watching each of the films I hoped that somehow the ending would change, that perhaps that the ship didn't sink. Without a doubt, I'm sure millions of people will still get teary-eyed watching "Titanic 3D" next month, even though they would have seen the film hundreds of times. The focus of the human condition in all three of the films makes the topic of the Titanic timeless. James Cameron said in regards to the re-release of his 1997 film: "we can still squeeze a little applause out of a 15-year-old movie." No James, I am sure that the Titanic's fascinating story portrayed on film will continue to 'squeeze' out applause for many years to come, in 3D or not.

PS. There is going to be a fabulous Titanic mini-series released in April 2012 by Jullian Fellows on ITV:

Meeting Joseph Kony (Uganda 2006) and the power of the camera

A bit of additional information relating to my previous post about Kony 2012. I have recently subscribed to a documentary channel on youtube called Journeyman Pictures. It is a very interesting channel covering a vast amount of issues in many countries including Iran, Afganistan, Argentina, and Belarus. Recently on the 8th March 2012 two videos were released about Kony: one documenting an unpredictable meeting with the LRA leader in 2006 (shown below) and the second from 2010 following the Ugandan army 'manhunt' in catching Kony.


Meeting Joseph Kony - Uganda June 2006

Initially I was dubious on which lead this 15 min short film would take after the amount of criticism that KONY 2012 got the day before. This documentary is more journalistic than KONY 2012 and provides a broader look on the subject of the LRA and not just focusing on Kony. The title initially grabbed me as seeing the phrase 'Meeting Joseph Kony' was bizarre after hearing that he was hard man to find. However this footage was shot in 2006, and  it is unbelievable that in such a short space of time this man has apparently literally disappeared from the face of the world. 

The power of the video camera is very evident here. Firstly the reporter and cameraman is British and he is not seen throughout the film. Yet his presence is made through asking very direct and specific questions such as: "do you believe that the spirts talk to him (to Kony)?" and "how many spirts does Kony have?" to which the solider replies very confidently: "yes", "three". I was very confused by this until I found out that 'hearing' spirits is common culture throughout Africa. I think the most shocking part of this film is not really seeing the destruction that the LRA have done but the meeting of Kony himself, who, in some ways, has become the new social media Face of Terror.

What Kony had to say didn't come as a surprise. He was clearly informed that a camera was in the area so obviously he was not going to admit to the crimes he is charged with. The first time the viewer sees Kony he does a hand action which resembles holding a camera. Interestingly there are no visible child soldiers in the film apart from one young child holding a gun at the beginning. Kony begins by saying that Journeyman Pictures is the first journalist to interview him in his jungle hideout in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and issues a chilling statement: "now you have seen me, I am a human being, like you." He describes himself to be a freedom fighter but actually he comes across as a lying, manipulative man. The presense of the camera significantly alters his actions and words. The journalist also comments on a slight change of attitude from the leader when he is talking to his 'recruited' men about what would happen if he was in power. 

In this short film we see the power of the camera and the way it can change peoples behaviours. Stella A. Bain and James S. Baxter state in their report on "Interrogative suggestibility: The role of
interviewer behaviour":

"All witnesses, victims and suspects enter an interrogation with a general cognitive set regarding the situation. This cognitive set is influenced by uncertainty about the subject-matter of the interrogation, the degree of interpersonal trust witnesses feel towards the interrogator, and their expectations regarding what is about to happen. This general cognitive set can facilitate either a resistant or suggestible behavioural response to the interrogation."

~ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/135532500168029/pdf (accessed 11.03.2012)

The viewer has to consider the validity of the interview.  This interview is useful as it gave Kony the chance to speak instead of just being known by his face and his 'presence' across Uganda. But it is clear that the pressure of being interviewed and documented on film means that Kony's statement is highly unreliable and the viewer has to rely on the other images that Journeyman pictures also screens in the film. I leave this blog entry by quoting a statement the sociologist Ann Oakley, made about Interviews in 1981:

“Interviewing is rather like a marriage: everybody knows what it is, an awful lot of people do it, and yet behind each closed front door there is a world of secrets.” 

~ http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=utk_nurspubs (accessed 11.03.2012)

The road to Rome is not my road, so I'll take you along to a place called --

Uganda. Where Joseph Kony was born in1961. Today, unless you've been living in a cave it would of been hard to ignore the small docu-film that was posted on youtube yesterday about Kony.

This film has informed millions of people about the campaign work that Invisible children has been doing since 2003 but it also has sparked an overwhelming amount of criticism. An opposing blog called Visible children strongly disagrees with the campaign, stating: 

"Military intervention may or may not be the right idea, but people supporting KONY 2012 probably don’t realise they’re supporting the Ugandan military who are themselves raping and looting away. If people know this and still support Invisible Children because they feel it’s the best solution based on their knowledge and research, I have no issue with that. But I don’t think most people are in that position, and that’s a problem."

I must admit when I watched the film and saw that the activists in some scenes in the video I thought they were represented as extremely aggressive and 'war' like.  I too, have my doubts on whether or not military intervention is the best method. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. However this film, as a documentary, does exactly what it sets out to do: document, inform and persuade. The millions of views and shares on facebook and twitter proves that the Invisible children organisation has got their message across. Any other organisation fighting for the same issue and who opposes the use of military intervention should make a video and propose another way to 'fight' the problem.

On defining the documentary Bill Nichols cites that "the heart and soul of any definition arises within a specific social and historical context and it varies with time and place...(this) means that no single, timeless definition can capture what documentary film has been or might yet be." ( Bill Nichols, "At the edges of Hollywood: Documentary" in The cinema book, pp. 81-83, third edition, ed Cook, P., 2007, Palgrave MacMillan, London) The documentary film is always evolving and this short film complements Nichols' statement perfectly as this film highlights the availability of technology in the 21st century in contrast to the soviet Cinéma vérité style: described by Dziga Vertov in the 1940s were there were no actors, no decors, no script and no acting as can been seen in my first post about the Nuremberg trials made in 1947. Overtime the meaning of the term use Cinéma vérité has evolved and is now also used when describing Reality television (or Cinema direct) which is more of a sociological investigative study where the director intervenes in the staging of the shots and put the footage through the editing process. 

The film drama is the Opium of the people…down with Bourgeois fairy-tale scenarios…long live life as it is!

—Dziga Vertov

In the same way KONY 2012 is also a sociological study with the main point of focus being Jacob, a young boy who managed to escape Kony's group the LRA (Lord's Resistance Arny). He is interviewed by the director and we also see his development from a boy to a young adult. The film, as a whole puts forward a politicised and at times radical militant view of the subject. Jason Russell, the director, does not conceal the amount of work that went into the making of the short 30 min film. He provides a long list of names who contributed to the production of the film and the use of animation, 3D modelling, visual effects, narration (script), and Cinematography. Therefore the use of technological advances has helped make this film clear and concise; whilst the montage shots of people marching, chanting, holding up banners omits a strong sense of collective unity along with the viewer which then gives them a sense of urgency and making them ask "what can I do about this?" Showing the scrolling of a facebook time line page (which the viewer recognises) and the zooming in and out of the impressive 3D globe and digitalised maps puts the spectator literally 'on the map' helping them identify with a specific time and place highlighting that 'this is happening now, at this immediate moment in time' which is empowering and reminds the viewer that this is not an historical documentary.

What affected me most however was the use of cinematography and, as it were the mise-en-scene, with the repeated use of guns, army uniforms and the the use of a hand salute (pictured in the screen shot below) which is an extended upright arm with the peace sign. This frame provides so many contrasting views: peace but with the slogan 'fight war', the collective masses all following one cause, in the same uniform with a strong upright arm. The image of the salute is such a powerful one and is associated primarily with the military. Although salutes are still used today, the powerful, aggressive images of salutes shown throughout radical periods in history are the ones which leave a lasting impression (second photograph of a Pro-National front march in 1979). 

"We've seen these kids, we've heard their cries, this war must end, we will not stop, we will not fear, we will fight war"

Pro-National Front marchers give the Nazi salute as they interrupt an anti-fascist rally in London’s East End in April 1979. 

Documentaries make us question a lot about the world. Primarily, they makes us question the truth. I did share KONY 2012 on my facebook because I felt strongly against Kony and the LRA but I do not agree with military intervention. Among other things, military intervention prevents these men from being put on trial for their crimes agaisnt humanity like in the case of Bin Laden, killed by the US Military and Gaddaffi, killed by the militant Rebel group. Although some people think there is no need for a trial, it is still more democratic. More importantly, however, the film resolved with a sense of "happy ever after" for the victims of the LRA showing them reunited with their families but the the LRA has been operating for many years, taking over 30,000 children and so even if the charity does not abandon these victims after Kony and (possibly) the LRA are gone, the process of the aftermath is going to be even more laborious.

The mind works in twists and turns.

For a while now I have wanted to start a blog and so after several failed attempts I believe I have finally settled on a subject which I can talk about  without boring myself or you, reader. That subject is: Film. All films, well any that I can get my student hands on.  It seems like the perfect time to start a film blog as the recent 84^th Academy Awards highlighted the importance of the beginning of the film industry:  with a reminder of the brilliance of the silent film in “The Artist” (2011) and Martin Scorsese’s reference to good old George Méliès in “Hugo” (2011); with each film scooping up five Oscar’s. 

Referring to myself as a film student often gets a few sneers and usually “doesn’t that mean you just watch a shit load of films?” Well, naturally. To be able to talk about film I obviously need to watch them. But if anyone thinks that I sat through four hours of D.W Griffiths' silent film “Birth of a Nation” (1915) for my own pleasure, one would be mistaken. I do love silent film but not for four hours and not with such an obnoxious storyline. I watched it as it is a treasured piece of cinema and there is no doubt in any cinema-lovers mind how influential Griffiths was for cinema progression; the film is not a classic for  its representation of history (dear God, no) but for Griffith’s pioneering use of the modern camera and one of the first directors to introduce the use of the narrative to the cinema. 

Moving on, four years down the line and currently in the middle of writing my dissertation on Italian cinema of the 1970’s, I find myself analysing in detail and annoyingly criticising every film I watch. I’ve become a frequent viewer of old movies telling anyone who will listen about my obsession with Cary Grant (well, he is a beaut). Needless to say a typical day for me consists of watching, at least, one film. I watch films in no particular order skipping from 1930s Britain, to 1960s Italy, back to 1950s America and coming back into the present. My blog entries will be in no particular order, and I begin on a debated form of cinema, the documentary.  Documentaries have a very on/off, love/ hate relationship with modern society. The first pieces of film to grace the silver screen can be considered to be documentaries as the main aim was to film everyday occurrences, for example some of the first films of the Lumiere brothers like "L'Arrivée d'un Train a la Ciotatfrom" in 1985. Nowadays there are so many types all with the same general aims to educate, highlight, inform, and shock spectators who want to discover more about the society they live in or how society was. 

“WWII: Nuremberg Trials” or “Sud narodov” (1947) is a Soviet Russian documentary about the notorious Nazi war trials post- WWII and the criminals being brought to justice, with archive footage of  Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Josef Goebbels and Hermann Göring among others. It was directed by Roman Karmen and Yelizaveta Svilova. The film contains disturbing footage of the aftermath of the holocaust as well as the result of the trials. Having a strange fascination with this period of history it is interesting to be able to view this era and it is just as important to preserve this footage so one doesn’t forget. Film footage, like this, can be more shocking than history books as the audience is forced to see images of reality in all its brutality. In addition this film is also a Soviet propaganda piece with the narrator informing the public about the great Soviets victory over the ‘evil Germans'. Like most documentary films, it has to be viewed with a perspective of when it was released and the attitude of society it was being distributed to. Thus, it has to be taken with a pinch of salt. A look at the trials from another side, the American public, can be seen in "The Nuremberg Trials documentary" (1950) from the film archive.

I realise this isn't the lightest of subjects to begin my blog, and as Mr Fawlty would say: "don't mention the war" but, for me, these documentaries illustrate the importance of film in today's society in reflecting the past and serving as a beginning to the first of many more posts to come.