Loner…

dzeyarr’s photo essay…

Personal experience man ata ito..

Napasa ko na to kay sir sa cd,

trip ko lang i-upload sa blog..

pero feel free to comment..

coin operated boy/s… hihihihi

Kainis… pixelized siya…

anyway..

proud pa rin…hihihi

capturing moments…

 Photographs has that ability to freeze time and let moments last a lifetime or more…

One thing unique about photographs is the fact that it is nearly imporssible to have a concrete definition/classification of what an original photograph is..

I believe photography is an art because there is the simple intention of creating something and make it the best as it can be. Of course not all photographs are art, but so are paintings and sculptures made by other people whom are not considered artists and are just made because they only feel doing it.

There is a so called “taking pictures” and “making Pictures”.

different perspectives..

videos and films offer a different perspective in looking at things. adding to that is their ability to manipulate how images are seen and how they should be seen.

it has the ability to make you absorbed in a new unverse and would sometimes make you forget your reality and hypnotize you to believe that what is real is what you are seeing..

Seeing through a camera lens, just like in photographs, guides the viewers attention to a specific detail that is wanted to be emphasized by the maker. It is a small parcel of the totality of that particular subject. whew!!

Adding to it are the camera angles, movements, use of colors, lighting, costumes, sound and not onlt does the maker lets the viewer experience the shot visually, rather, the viewer experiences it psychologically, in a sense that the viewer imagines or percieves some depth where the shot is located even though it lies only on a flart surface.

Image of actors..

[there is a part in the trailer of the movie Babel that would show Brad Pitt as a desperate husband]

Even though the movie Babel is just a fictional series of unfortunate events, the audience were still absorbed in it.

I believe that the movie was very effective because only two characters in the movie are recognizable for the audience (Brad and Kate). This fact helps make the audience fully believe that each of the actors in the movie are embodiements of their characters, because most of the actors were not seen before, and there is no point of reference for the audience to know if they are appropriate for the role (which eventually was) or not. Hence, if the actors did good in portraying their character, and the audience believed them.

If the father of the two boys in the middle east had been in an earlier movie playing a role of a rich democrat, the audience might find him inappropritae and awkward for the role. This is because, previously, the audience had established in their minds that the actor was good at portraying a rich democrat, and may find it hard to reestablish in their minds that the actors is also good in portraying a poor man. If it was like that, the actor hould double of triple the effort of making the aduience believe that he is a poor man. But this was not the case, at first glance the actor is believable, and througout the movie, he was consistent with his role, which makes him very fit and believable for that role.

However, if there are cases wherein an actor was seen in a previous movie like Brad Pitt, he has the much greater task of acting much more convincingly than “normal”. Not only does he need to make the audience forget about his previous role, he also has to do it very convincingly, in which he did, that is why he can be considered as one of the better actors in hollywood. He was able to separate his character in Babel from his previous characters from his previous movies.

Looking at the two pictures of Brad Pitt, the left image was taken from the movie Babel, and on the right was taken from his previous movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith.. He was very convincing in each of the two characters that he portaryed.  He can be a spunky, cool sexy guy and a desprate husband.. (For additional reference, please watch the videos)

“For the stage, an actor works himself into a role, for the film the perfomer takes the role onto himself” -  Stanley Cavell

In the stage, there is always that tendency that the actor will fall out of his character, hence in the minds of the audience, the actor really is just portraying a role, and that the actor onstage would be different offstage.

On the other hand, on the screen, there is no tendency that the actor will fall out of character, which in turn would make the audience believe that the actor is the character that he portrays.

It maybe one of the reason why some people still has that feeling of anger when they see an actor in person whom played a very sinister role in his previous movie.

This is the reason why movie actors have to be very crafty and flexible in their art, because they always have to convince the audience that they are themselves the character they portray.

Without any reference of whom the actor is off the camera, the image of the actor in the movie is what sticks to the audience.

(I would like to add that in the case of Brad Pitt, he was believable in his role because i never saw him “balbas sarado” before. His facial features which is credited to ounstanding make up helped in making the audience avoid comparing Brad’s other characters to his character in the movie. Because in previous recent movies, Brad was always neat and tidy looking, unlike in this movie.)

[the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith, is where Brad Pitt isplays a "cool" spunky guy]..

Sources:

Images:  Yahoo! Images

Videos:   You Tube

Playing with time..

heartbkreaking… ouch!!!

“Past, present and future within the world of film can be brought together in any way the film maker desires” – Sesonske

“the occurence of motion in cinema makes its three dimensional space a genuine visual action space, where we perceive not merely compositions but characters, actions and events…

But enough about the effect it gave to me…

The movie Babel played with time, which in turn contributed to the “Ouch” effect that it gave to the audience. The sequencing of scenes were not according to how the events in the story really happened. This is called the Dramatic time.

The first scene was just a precursor for the root of everything that would happen in the movie. It gives a little amount of sympathy for the family of the two boys. It is the factor that somehow makes the audience step back their emotions on blaming the boys of the tragic events about to happen, because the sympathy was the first one established, not the anger.

In the scene where the nanny and Brad Pitt(i’ll use Brad Pitt as the center of identification) were talking on the phone, which was followed by the scenes where the Brad and his wife were spending their time in the middle east, made the audience think that the phone call happened before the trip to the middle east.

In the succeeding scenes, it was all part of raising the emotions of the audience. There were scenes of a Japanese deaf-mute girl, the nany bringing the children of Brad with her because of her son’s weddinng and she has no one to leave the kids to, and the most significant scene in the movie where the wife of Brad Pitt was shot by one of the boys in the middle east.

Then, the succeeding events were how desperately Brad tries to save the life of her wife, and in between was the scenes on what was heppening to his children.

While these two events were happening, the audience were made to believe that they were happening simoultaneuosly. However, when the scene where Brad Pitt was the one focused on by the camera in his conversation with the nanny, everything went upside down.

All along, the phone call between Brad and the nanny was done after Brad’s wife was shot, which explains why he was very eager not to let the nanny go to her son’s wedding, he even offered to double her salary.

This unfolding of events made the audience give more pity to Brad and his family. The sequences where the unfortunate events came one by one was even more pitiful than them coming in simultaneously.

The director (obviously) chose to sequence the scenes not according to how it should happen because it would help build the emotions of the audience. This build up of emotions would contribute to the pity that the audience would feel for Brad.

If the sequence were done according to how it should happen, then the emotions of the audience would be very low. It would be as if the movie was giving facts one by one, which makes the level of excitement flat.

In movies, the biggest factor in making the movie exciting or thrilling is making the audience ask questions along the way and giving them something that they do not expect. This would make them anxious to know what was the cause of a scene and what would be its effect in future scenes. It helps make the audince in the edge of their seats. It makes them want to not miss any second of the movie.

In the mood for love… in secret..

Hmmm…. peeping and looking at something without getting noticed…

Looking at something which were meant to be hidden, or is tabooed by society…

The movie dominantly used close up shots, which results in highlighting the images focused on. It is mainly used to emphasize body parts, especially those of the contours of the female protagonist.

The camera acts like the eyes of a man, not only does it stare (while drooling), it also caresses the female body. Even though there is no physical contact, through an exaggerated focus on the body parts, the visual stimuli of the audience can compensate for the lack of it. This in turn makes the movie very visually sensual.

The movie also uses bizarre camera angles. a majority of which were under a table, through small gaps on the doors, outside of a window looking in. This kind of camera angle gives the audience the feeling of a “peeping tom”. Looking at someone or something with curiosity and of course, unnoticed.

The peeping effect, also gives the audience the feeling of looking at something which is not normally seen through the public eye. It is because, when peeping (of course), the object of sight does not know that he/she/it is beeing looked at.

It also adds to the secrecy of the affair between the male and the female protagonists whom have each of their own spouses.

The slow motion during scenes where the woman is walking adds to that carressing effect. Because when you caress somone, you do not do it fast, but rather very slowly, touching and feeling every inch of the skin of the person you are caressing.

The camera movements are also bizarre. There are time when the camera is static, does not follow where the actor goes, and there are times when there is a shot with no actors in it, only the place where the were or where they should be.

That kind of camera movement adds to the effect of “not being allowed to see something”. If “normal” camera movements were used, the camera would follow the movements of the actors.

This effect adds the notion that what we saw was “coincidental”, or we are only allowed to see what we saw. It mostly resembles a peephole. Wherein one could only see what is offered by the peephole and nothing more.

There are also instances in a scene where there are two people conversing, only one of them is shown in the camera. It is either the sender of the receiver. It somehow highlights the emotions of the person focused on the camera. It gives no attention or neglects the other.

Unlike the movie Citizen Kane, where the camera angles let the audience feel free to choose whom and where to focus their attentions, this movie commands the audience what to give attention to.

I also believe that the background music (just like in the video), helps add to that emotion and excitement that the audience feels. The feeling of peeping and being caught at anytime…

Sources:

Video:   You Tube