Zombies are now appearing everywhere in main stream media however some of their finer aspects have been forgotten and their use as a political tool to make statements is all but forgotten as Hollywood blockbusters take over the Zombie genre. Despite its money and power Hollywood doesn't control all of the Zombie media, Zombies have always been popular with independent film makers using low budgets to attack a fun and playful genre. It all began with one of my favourite films Night of the Living Dead (1968 George A Romero (1)) which has inspired many films over many years and has birthed the modern zombie movie. However the genre has become stale in the past dying out in the 90's specifically. However the zombie has re emerged in his paper Dead Man Still Walking: A Critical Investigation Into the Rise and Fall...and Rise of Zombie Cinema (2) Kyle Bishop attributes this to survivalist similarities in zombie films being similar to natural disasters and terrorism. Bishop's essay on Zombie's re emergence makes a strong argument for the importance and relevance of zombie films and convinced me that they are still worth making if a fresh angle can be found.
One of the biggest questions I came across whilst researching zombies is "what do zombies represent?" The answer seems to be pretty much anything, and it really varies depending on the film itself. The "Godfather" of the zombie film George Romero has said in interviews "to me, the zombies have always just been zombies" (3) so maybe they are not always encoded representations but the infected, dirty mass is always decoded as the different, the other, whether it be the poor, the black, the Vietnamese or women. There are plenty of interesting representations but to me and it seems Romero, the interesting thing about zombie films is the way the humans act in crisis. However the problem with the survivors in zombie films is that they are the protestation and they are the heroes, the white knights saving the world, to me a more interesting direction for zombie films is to make a Zombie the hero. This relieves the spectator of the need to identify with the survivors and vilify the zombies therefore seeing the humans as evil murderers.
This idea was inspired by two main films and influenced by many, of course the first film maker to view the zombie as a sympathetic character was George A Romero himself in Day of the Dead (1985 Romero (4)). In this film one zombie, Bub, is being taught to remember his humanity, to read and listen to music as he once did. Professor Logan is his teacher and he gives him parts of humans as positive re enforcement however when the antagonist of the film, the totalitarian military dictator Captain Rhodes, finds out he kills Professor Logan. In retaliation when the zombies break out Bub shoots Captain Rhodes and leaves him to be eaten. Romero uses a few techniques to make Bub a sympathetic character, firstly he suggests that he remembers and is diffrent to other zombies, he is unique, apart from the mass. Then he has Bub act out of emotion, this is shown by his use of a gun rather than him eating Rhodes, he does is not for food but for revenge. Finally he has Bub defeat the overall antagonist of the film further pushing him towards being the hero of the film. Romero plays with the idea of sympathetic zombies again in Land of the Dead (2005 Romero (5)) in which the zombies have a leader as do the rebellious humans. In this film the villain is again a dictatorship however it is built on a corrupt capitalism on a protected island, in the end the leader of the rebel and the leader of the zombies share a look and settle differences deciding to coexist rather than fight. Whilst these zombies are not particularly sympathetic they definitely aren't evil, they are just another group of "different" people. In Romero's most recent zombie film Survival of the Dead (2009 Romero (6)) tackles the idea that killing zombies could be wrong as in the future zombieism could be cured, as well as the idea that if forced zombies will eat something other than humans.
The other main inspiration was Colin (Marc Price (7)) which centres around a zombie named Colin. Obviously the film is from his point of view and is therefore a massive inspiration however one of the main techniques it uses to get the audience to sympathise is showing him in his human form and this is something I would rather not do. It does however follow the conventions of Day of the Dead by showing him as different to other zombies, he also doesn't kill humans, he merely eats those that are dying. Finally he remembers his humanity in some subtle ways. From Colin and Day of the Dead some clear conventions are shown and if used and repeated I believe it is possible to make a heroic identifiable zombie. I searched through the internet to find other zombie films that feature zombie heroes and came across the comical parody Fido (2006 Andrew Currie(8)) which also follows many of the conventions set by Day of the Dead as well as comically following conventions of animal films such as Lassie in Lassie Comes Home (1943 Fred M. Wilcox (9)) to make Fido the zombie seem like a loving companion and father figure.
I then began to plan my actual film and which sequence I would show, I wanted to pick a specifically important scene and the one I decided on is an essential turning point of the film and possibly the final scene. I thought an extremely simple but unused idea or a zombie film or a scene within one would be the question "what if a zombie doesn't want to eat a particular person?" Through this question and the conventions I have recognised throughout the other zombie films I have seen that relate to my own I crafted my proposal for my scene along with a rough plot for a full film. After writing this and discussing it, it seemed obvious that my film hinges on identification and it would therefore be a useful exercise to look back at Laura Mulvey seminal text "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (10). I wanted to read Mulvey's essay to both find new themes to write into my film and to find ways of increasing the identification with Andy, my zombie, made by the audience. Although I struggled to find much to help with the identification side of things, as it seems I naturally wrote most of that in, I did find some interesting themes to inlay about the gaze. The most interesting thing I found was Mulvey's statement about Hitchcock whom she said "uses the process of identification normally associated with ideological correctness and the recognition of established morality and shows up its perverted side." What I wish to do fits this in some ways, firstly I am showing the perverted side of those who the audience would normally identify with, the survivors. Secondly I am showing an internal struggle through Andy as he decides whether to eat Sarah or not the audience clearly will him not to as they wish him to be the hero however the struggle mimics that of the audience as he fails to resist this inevitably upsets the audience and shows the darker side of identification. There is also the morale question of whether I should use Sarah or not, she will clearly be an object of "scopophillia" and the metaphor of hunger and sexual lust isn't particularly difficult to make. Despite the fact that some may see the use of her character as a tool to make the audience identify with Andy as ultimately objectifying her I personally see it as a story telling technique not a political statement. I am strongly aware of the possibility to use the zombie film as a feminist statement as Stephen Harper believes Romero does as explained in "They're US": Representations of Women in George Romero's 'Living Dead' Series"(11) and I plan on replicating one of the shots most talked about in this article. The shot in question is the female character of Romero's Dawn of the Dead (1976 Romero (12)) sits on the floor staring at a zombie on the opposite side of the glass to her. This shows many things specifically in Dawn of the Dead it links to the heroines pregnancy as well as consumerism and feminism. In my film it will serve both thematic and narrative purposes by strengthening the relationship between Andy and Sarah and hinting at subtexts about patriarchal male society and zombies possibly being a representation of oppressed women.
Throughout the workshops I have learned a great many things to help me through the process of planning, shooting and post production. One of the most important things that came out of our production lessons and from our overall process was the importance of everyone involved understanding the basic feeling and aims of the film. Although this seems obvious as an amateur film maker it isnt something I had strictly considered before however in the future I will ensure that everyone involved in the process has a good idea of what the finished product should be. I also learned a lot about planning productions, whilst I wan't the production manager on my shoot I saw a lot of ways it could have been improved and will in the future make sure all shoots are carefully planned. Specifically the number of people on set is to be kept a minimum to reduce confusion, to do this I will ensure that all of my shoots there are areas for non essential crew to stay. One of the most surprising things I learned was how easy it is to make a realistic looking set, whilst the majority of my film will be shot outside I will consider any inside shots being done on sets as they are easy to manipulate and light whilst being affordable and dress-able.
Throughout the course I have also learned a lot about visual special effects, both practical effects and computer generated. For the first time ever I used a green screen, Maya, and Adobe After Effects. These tools are extremely useful for creating fantastic elements though a long process rather than an expensive process. In my proposal I have mentioned a few effects firstly zombies feasting, this is something I have plated with before and seems to be fairly easy to do in a practical manner with cooked animal parts and strawberry sauce, I think using computer effects for this would be over complicated. However computer effects will be perfect for my other visual effect, gunshots. I have not experimented with gunshots on Maya or After Effects before but have looked online at some helpful tutorials and am sure that with some practice a believable effect would be achievable. Another visual I am interested in exploring through the use of green screens or green socks is the removal of zombies limbs, I think that with a locked off shot and a considered simple background the effect is easily achievable and worth experimenting with as it has become a zombie convention.
I believe that my proposal is well thought out and placed within the context of my research which shows the gap in the market my film has the potential to fill. I have also shown well that I have considered the deeper meanings within my proposal and have read texts that relate to them. My learning throughout the module has helped both the planning of my proposal and the planning for actually filming. The ideas and concepts for the use of computer generated effects would not have been possible without the sessions which have informed my visual ideas. I hope in the future to be able to produce this sort of film with considered background and planning and carefully informed narratives.
1. Night of the Living Dead, Dir. Romero G., 1968, USA Image Ten, Laurel Group
2. Explaining the Zombie Renaissance: Dead Man Still Walking: A Critical Investigation Into the Rise and Fall...and Rise of Zombie Cinema p17-25, Bishop Kyle, 2009, The University of Arizona
3. Eric Spitznagel. (2010). George A. Romero: "Who Says Zombies Eat Brains?". Available: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2010/05/george-romero. Last accessed 20/12/12.
4. Day of the Dead, Dir. Romero G., 1985, USA. Laurel Entertainment Inc.
5. Land of the Dead, Dir. Romero G., 2005, USA. Universal Pictures.
6. Survival of the Dead, Dir. Romero G., 2009, USA Blank of the Dead Productions
7. Colin Dir. Price M., 2008, UK. Nowhere Fast Productions
8. Fido Dir. Currie A., 2006, Canada, Lions Gate Films
9. Lassie Comes Home Dir. Wilcox F., 1943, USA, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
10. "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (1975) Mulvey L. Originally Published - Screen 16.3 Autumn 1975 pp. 6-18. Available http://imlportfolio.usc.edu/ctcs505/mulveyVisualPleasureNarrativeCinema.pdf) Last accessed 15.12.12
11. Stephen Harper. (). "They’re Us": Representations of Women in George Romero’s ‘Living Dead’ Series. Available: http://intensities.org/Essays/Harper.pdf. Last accessed 20/12/12.
12. Dawn Of the Dead Dir. Romero G., 1978, USA, Laurel Group
Thursday 20 December 2012
Hunger. Feature Film Proposal.
This scene comes towards the end of our film which has
centred on Andy, a regular zombie who frequently watches the inhabitants of a
shopping centre through the glass windows.
I have a lot of clear visual inspiration, as far as zombies go there is a massive wealth of material for me to look at, emulate and adapt. The main visual influence is Colin (Marc Price 2008) whilst a lot of the footage is a little overexposed and poorly light balanced the actual visual style, pacing and framing is very similar to my personal vision. Another of the great things about Colin I wish to emulate is the overall look of the zombie outbreak, the desolate streets, the gang violence and the overcast weather are all excellent features, in my film they would fit perfectly and the depressing tone they add to the film is what I am aiming for. One thing not in Colin that will feature heavily in my film will be a shopping centre, much like in Dawn of the Dead (1978 George Romero) however unlike Dawn I want to shoot it from the outside only, I want to show the shopping mall through the eyes of the zombie.
One idea I had for the visuals was to use point of view a lot, this would help achieve the goal of getting my audience to identify with Andy, my protagonist zombie, however when over used point of view can often disorientate and confuse audiences. I also want to show my audience what Andy is doing therefore I will use largely conventional camerawork to show him as a sympathetic character. One important way of doing this that I read from Colin is to show him as alone, in long, wide shots with no other zombies or people, this makes him seem separate to the rest of the zombies making him a lonely hero rather than art of the zombie evil mass.
I noticed a few things whilst compiling my moodboard that made me consider the colour in my film, the most important of which will be the amount of red and the vividness of the colour palette. I noticed a surprising lack of red in the images I gathered for my moodboard, in my film there will be bright blood and other red items bringing life to the shots everywhere, this both makes it visually interesting for the spectator and makes it a little bit different to the norm. Another thing I noticed is the tendency for film makers to think, its bleak and apocalyptic so we should drain all of the life out of the colour pallet and whilst I agree with the affect it gives there is a certain amount of beauty lost when that is done. In my film I will carefully select a few colours and shades to make vivid, red specifically, and then work on tinting the rest of the film much like Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson 2008) to give it a stylised, bright and bleak effect.
Zombies offer perfect possibilities to explore and experiment with visual effects, whilst I have explored some use of Maya and Adobe After Effects I still feel that real visual effects should be used as often as possible. A simple example of the kind of effect I will use is to cover a cooked pigs heart in fake blood and have one of my zombies eat it. I would however also like to attempt removing zombies libs with blue or green socks and keying, I think with the appropriate locked off shot this effect could be a great advantage to the realism of my film.
1. Colin (2008 Marc Price)
2. Dawn of the Dead (1978 George A Romero)
3. Let the Right One In (2008 Tomas Alfredson)
Our unpredictable hero Andy is stumbling along the road in
his zombie like manner, he walks toward a feasting zombie who looks up at him,
mouth covered in blood, and groans violently at him. He is starved but against
his will he moves on from the dead body looking for food. As he walks around
aimlessly he comes to the back of the shopping centre, on a raised loading bay
Sarah, whom he has become attached to, and Mark, the “leader” of the survivors
that the shopping centre protects from the likes of Andy appear.
Mark waves the loaded gun at Sarah shouting, his authority
has been questioned, she is as dangerous to him as the monsters outside the
walls. Tears stream down Sarah’s face as Andy moves closer, quietly and
carefully. Sarah turns side on and stares at Andy “I’m not keeping quiet about
what you did to that girl.” Andy shouts, supporting Sarah, threatening Mark.
Mark has two problems, the first he shoots in the chest, Andy recoils and falls
to the ground. The second problem is no different, he puts his gun to the side
of Sarah head. The force of the blast knocks her off the loading bay. Andy
lurches forward to get revenge for Sarah. Mark pistol whips Andy, he isn’t
worth a bullet. Looking down from the loading bay Mark spits on Andy and
retreats into the shopping centre.
Andy attempts to climb up to the loading bay after Mark, a fresh
meal and revenge for the fallen but after just a few seconds he gives up, or
forgets. Starving, Andy looks at the dead body of Sarah laid on the floor next
to him. He looks. He blinks. Blood pools around her head. He groans at her and
moves her hand with his foot. He drops to his knees and groans again. He places
his hands on her shoulder and arm and groans, loudly and for a long time, it is
the zombie equivalent of a heartbreaking cry. He rolls her over and forcefully,
angrily cries again before leaning over her body. Blood from the cut on his
head drips down to his eye and onto Sarah’s lifeless body. He leans all the way
down and takes a bite from Sarah’s side, as he comes up he looks upwards and
cries again, his mouth filled with blood. We see his back as he sits over the
body trying to resist his hunger as the picture fades to black.
I have a lot of clear visual inspiration, as far as zombies go there is a massive wealth of material for me to look at, emulate and adapt. The main visual influence is Colin (Marc Price 2008) whilst a lot of the footage is a little overexposed and poorly light balanced the actual visual style, pacing and framing is very similar to my personal vision. Another of the great things about Colin I wish to emulate is the overall look of the zombie outbreak, the desolate streets, the gang violence and the overcast weather are all excellent features, in my film they would fit perfectly and the depressing tone they add to the film is what I am aiming for. One thing not in Colin that will feature heavily in my film will be a shopping centre, much like in Dawn of the Dead (1978 George Romero) however unlike Dawn I want to shoot it from the outside only, I want to show the shopping mall through the eyes of the zombie.
One idea I had for the visuals was to use point of view a lot, this would help achieve the goal of getting my audience to identify with Andy, my protagonist zombie, however when over used point of view can often disorientate and confuse audiences. I also want to show my audience what Andy is doing therefore I will use largely conventional camerawork to show him as a sympathetic character. One important way of doing this that I read from Colin is to show him as alone, in long, wide shots with no other zombies or people, this makes him seem separate to the rest of the zombies making him a lonely hero rather than art of the zombie evil mass.
I noticed a few things whilst compiling my moodboard that made me consider the colour in my film, the most important of which will be the amount of red and the vividness of the colour palette. I noticed a surprising lack of red in the images I gathered for my moodboard, in my film there will be bright blood and other red items bringing life to the shots everywhere, this both makes it visually interesting for the spectator and makes it a little bit different to the norm. Another thing I noticed is the tendency for film makers to think, its bleak and apocalyptic so we should drain all of the life out of the colour pallet and whilst I agree with the affect it gives there is a certain amount of beauty lost when that is done. In my film I will carefully select a few colours and shades to make vivid, red specifically, and then work on tinting the rest of the film much like Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson 2008) to give it a stylised, bright and bleak effect.
Zombies offer perfect possibilities to explore and experiment with visual effects, whilst I have explored some use of Maya and Adobe After Effects I still feel that real visual effects should be used as often as possible. A simple example of the kind of effect I will use is to cover a cooked pigs heart in fake blood and have one of my zombies eat it. I would however also like to attempt removing zombies libs with blue or green socks and keying, I think with the appropriate locked off shot this effect could be a great advantage to the realism of my film.
1. Colin (2008 Marc Price)
2. Dawn of the Dead (1978 George A Romero)
3. Let the Right One In (2008 Tomas Alfredson)
Monday 17 December 2012
Hunger Moodboard
1. Colin. 2008. Dir. Price M. UK. Nowhere Fast Productions
2. Dawn Of the Dead 1978. Dir. Romero G., USA, Laurel Group
3. Zombieland 2009. Dir. Fleischer R. USA. Columbia Pictures
4. Night and Fog. 1955. Dir. Resnais A. France, Argos Films
5. The Shining. 1980. Dir Kubrick S. USA. Warner Bros. Pictures
6. Full Metal Jacket 1987. Dir. Kubrick S. USA. Warner Bros. Pictures
7. Battle Royale, 2000, Dir. Fukasaku K. Japan. AM Associates
8. Day of the Dead. 1984, Dir. Romero G. USA. Laurel Entertainment Inc.
9. Land of the Dead 2005, Dir. Romero G. USA. Universal Pictures.
10. Dawn of the Dead 2004, Dir. Snyder Z. USA. Strike Entertainment
Saturday 15 December 2012
Hunger (Full rough plot synopsis)
Hunger begins with its protagonist, Andy a 20 something year old zombie, stumbling around in the zombie apocalypse. He is a typical zombie, feasting with the rest of them until he encounters a group of survivors, these few remaining humans are travelling through the city on foot and number 16. From a small alleyway Andy sees the approach a main street, the group progress, with the fully armed members blocking off the side streets, including Andy's. The man who blocks his path to the rest of the survivors is a man named Mark, who smiles at the four zombies in the alleyway with Andy. He shoots the first in both knees, the next through the eye, another he breaks the jaw of with his pistol and the fourth he punches square in the face, as it lays on the ground he kick and kicks her face into nothing. As he turns his gun on Andy the group have passed him and just before Mark shoots Sarah, a middle aged woman from the group calls him away.
Andy has seen the group now, and he isn't the only one, hordes of zombies stumble after the survivors who seek refuge in a shopping mall. Andy continues to search around the outside of the shopping mall for a way in, in doing so he has several interactions with the survivors whos numbers keep dropping as they make attempts to escape the shopping centre. Andy keeps seeing Sarah and at one time even sees her along, at a bottom floor window, through the window he stares and watches, face to face with Sarah, he just watches vacantly. In one attempted escape Sarah is separated from the group and trapped, on this occasion Andy lets her pass him without harming her, the two have gained a connection.
Andy has seen the group now, and he isn't the only one, hordes of zombies stumble after the survivors who seek refuge in a shopping mall. Andy continues to search around the outside of the shopping mall for a way in, in doing so he has several interactions with the survivors whos numbers keep dropping as they make attempts to escape the shopping centre. Andy keeps seeing Sarah and at one time even sees her along, at a bottom floor window, through the window he stares and watches, face to face with Sarah, he just watches vacantly. In one attempted escape Sarah is separated from the group and trapped, on this occasion Andy lets her pass him without harming her, the two have gained a connection.
In the final scene our unpredictable hero Andy is stumbling along the road in his zombie like manner, he walks toward a feasting zombie who looks up at him, mouth covered in blood, and groans violently at him. He is starved but against his will he moves on from the dead body looking for food. As he walks around aimlessly he comes to the back of the shopping centre, on a raised loading bay Sarah, whom he has become attached to, and Mark, the now “leader” of the survivors that the shopping centre protects from the likes of Andy appear.
Mark waves the loaded gun at Sarah shouting, his authority has been questioned, she is as dangerous to him as the monsters outside the walls. Tears stream down Sarah’s face as Andy moves closer, quietly and carefully. Sarah turns side on and stares at Andy “ I'm not keeping quiet about what you did to that girl.” Andy shouts, supporting Sarah, threatening Mark. Mark has two problems, the first he shoots in the chest, Andy recoils and falls to the ground. The second problem is no different, he puts his gun to the side of Sarah head. The force of the blast knocks her off the loading bay. Andy lurches forward to get revenge for Sarah. Mark pistol whips Andy, he isn’t worth a bullet. Looking down from the loading bay Mark spits on Andy and retreats into the shopping centre.
Andy attempts to climb up to the loading bay after Mark, a fresh meal and revenge for the fallen but after just a few seconds he gives up, or forgets. Starving, Andy looks at the dead body of Sarah laid on the floor next to him. He looks. He blinks. Blood pools around her head. He groans at her and moves her hand with his foot. He drops to his knees and groans again. He places his hands on her shoulder and arm and groans, loudly, the zombie equivalent of a heartbreaking cry. He rolls her over and forcefully, angrily cries again before leaning over her body. Blood from the cut on his head drips down to his eye and onto Sarah’s lifeless body. He leans all the way down and takes a bite from Sarah’s side, as he comes up he looks upwards and cries again, his mouth filled with blood. We see his back as he sits over the body trying to resist his hunger as the picture fades to black.
Writing theory into Hunger
After reading "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" by Laura Mulvey, again, along with many other theoretical texts in the last few months I really want to make the subtext of Hunger (my zombie film) something important, or at least put something there. So this is me talking about a few of my ideas, trying to solidify them and then write more scenes and structuring the film around the ideas. I have always wanted the film to have a slower kind of pace, similar to Colin (2008 Marc Price) in which Colin, the main character and zombie, bumbles about from place to place. I really like the feeling this gives the film however I think a trick is missed by not using them to imply deeper subjects and subtext.
1. Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis[1933] (Penguin Freud Library 2) p. 105-6 (accessed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego) (date accessed 15.12.12)
So one of the interesting ideas that has come to me is about what zombies represent. Obviously they have represented a lot in the past, ranging from mindless consumers to... well that seems to be the main one but there have always been ideas of race, gender and equality attached to Zombies. I think these are all interesting however I dont want to use Hunger to make a political point exactly I think zombies are a much more simple representation of the id. I was looking for a text specifically on this subject but surprisingly couldn't find any, however there are many small comments in the articles I have read that evidence the idea that Zombies could be the id. One of Freud's simplest descriptions of the Id is "we call it a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitations.... It is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle."(1) Zombies fit in a way to this simple analysis, they have needs ie. their hunger, and they live only to satisfy them, with no regards for anyone or anything else, they work purely on instinct with no thoughts about societal pressures. On the other hand the lack of fulfilment of their needs, the lack of satisfaction separates them from the id, as does their gang mentality. Part of my final scene (as well as the majority of my film) will address the pack mentality idea as my zombies will show themselves to look out for themselves first and foremost. In the final scene I show this with the zombie who denies Andy a meal, this both shows that the group isnt important to the zombie as well as showing that Andy is separate from the other zombies making him a more sympathetic character.
The ego on the other hand "seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bring grief."(2) which doesn't sound much like a zombie however it might be interesting to consider the whole of the film as a struggle for Andy to deny his id. In the start he is as any other zombie is, a creature controlled by his id and by his hunger. And after gaining a connection with Sarah he becomes to realise there is more. Or at least he tries (in the final scene) to deny his Id, deny his hunger, but tragically fails.
Another idea about the final tension in Hunger could relate to Mulvey's comment on Hitchcock style narratives that relate to the gaze. She says that Hitchcock "uses the process of identification normally associated with ideological correctness and the recognition of established morality and shows up its perverted side."(3) This seems like it is doable within a zombie film, especially one featuring a zombie as the main character. The problem with this is that I still want Andy to be the character identified with and the morale hero of the film. I can easily say that my "survivor" group represent the characters usually identified with and that demonising them makes this point but within my own narrative I am not questioning the correctness and morality of my hero and audience. Again an easy solution would be that the simple fact that he is a zombie and that he does eat Sarah. One thing is quite clear, Sarah will be the object of scopophilia mentioned in Mulvey's article, I am not planning on sexualising her but as a main female character it is inevitable. This leads to more possible readings in which the character of Mark can be utilised. If Sarah is the object of Scopophilia and she clearly hints at Mark being a violent or sexual predator in some way ("Im not going to keep quiet about what you did to that girl") he represents the normal audience who takes pleasure in the way they view Sarah. Andy on the other hand watches her in a more abstract and less objective way, without emotion or lust through glass in my only other planned scene. This shows the morality of Andy and when he finally eats Sarah or bites her dead body at least the metaphore for sexual fulfilment is complete however he clearly isnt happy, he is succumbing to needs not wants unlike Mark. The internal struggle of whether to eat Sarah or not is my manifestation of what Mulvey sees in Hitchcock's heroes that "portray the contradictions and tensions experienced by the spectator"(4) the spectator and Andy clearly dont want Sarah to be eaten but social pressures and primal needs take over in both cases and Sarah is eaten and is a subject of scopophilia.
So there are lots of things that my final scene could show in reflection to the articles I have read and I think that is a good thing however it would be nice when writing the rest of the film to try and pin down for sure which of the subtexts I am addressing If not pin down which then give more evidence to support each theme. Another important thing when writing issues into the subtext of films in my mind is to be clear about your aims for the film and whether you are for or against the issues. It is a good thing to raise issues within films but I think if you are unclear about whether you think something is good or bad you leave yourself open to misinterpretation and criticizes for things you did into intend. Obviously that cannot be completely avoided but that is why I am taking as much time to consider possible subtext before my writing as they can be clarified within the rest of my film.
Well I obviously have a lot to think about but in general I like the way my ideas are heading and will continue my research and writing for sure.
2. Noam, Gil G; Hauser, Stuart T.; Santostefano, Sebastiano; Garrison, William; Jacobson, Alan M.; Powers, Sally I.; Mead, Merrill (February 1984). "Ego Development and Psychopathology: A Study of Hospitalized Adolescents". Child Development(Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development) 55 (1): 189–194. (accessed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego) (date accessed 15.12.12)
3."Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (1975) Laura Mulvey Originally Published - Screen 16.3 Autumn 1975 pp. 6-18. Accessed on: http://imlportfolio.usc.edu/ctcs505/mulveyVisualPleasureNarrativeCinema.pdf) (date accessed 15.12.12)
4.Ibid.
How "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" relates to my project.
My zombie film is to be all about identification and getting the audience on the side of my hero, Andy, a zombie. This may be difficult as zombies are generally not what audiences aspire to be, rather they aspire to be the survivors that fight off zombies in a survivalist fantasy. When looking at identification and differences between audiences and on screen presences it is always helpful to look back at Laura Mulvey's seminal essay "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (1975) Originally Published - Screen 16.3 Autumn 1975 pp. 6-18. Whilst this strongly relates to Jaques Lacan's theories on the "gaze" and focuses on female audiences being forced to identify with male protagonists the method of which this identification is made is important to me as I can replicate it to make audiences identify with Andy.
One of the first important points and possible stumbling blocks for me is that "the image recognised is conceived as the reflected body of the self, but its misrecognition as superior projects this body outside itself as an ideal ego, the alienated subject. which, re-introjected as an ego ideal, gives rise to the future
generation of identification with others." This very first comment about recognition and identification brings about the point that we, when looking and therefore watching, identify with a character that represents the ego. This presents a problem as many of the things that define the ego are actually the opposite of what defines a zombie, who is more like the id.
The other "aspect of the pleasurable structure of looking" is that of scopophilia and the pleasure gained by "using another person as an object of sexual stimulation through sight" again this will be difficult within a post apocalyptic world. However as this article points out the literal act of sex or even sexualised images isn't necessary often the presence of a woman is enough for spectators to gain gratification as Hollywood conditioning and all sorts of psychoanalytic, Freudian and Lacanian processes take over. I am planning on having a living female protagonist in my film that develops a connection with Andy so perhaps this will help my cause. Also I understand that Mulvey's article is saying that most of these processes are bad and that women shouldn't be used in this way and I do agree but a film is a film and not a political tool after all. I think that the education of people into filmic ideas such as these does more to solve the problem than to stop using them, people recognising the problem is better than film makers not using the techniques because they are just ways of writing media that people enjoy and if it stopped and nobody knew why there would be no progress, no learning and no development for society, within a year or two people would start again and no one would be any wiser. That little detour just justifies in my mind the use of these techniques, I'm not an anti feminist trying to force women and men to see women as sexual objects, thats not my aim but I do understand that my ideas do do this.
Skipping over the arguments of women as passive and icon (not particularly relevant to my study) Mulvey continues to explain how "the active male figure (the ego ideal of the identification process)" need the film to "reproduce as accurately as possible the so-called natural conditions of human perception." These include "Camera technology (as exempified by deep focus in particular) and camera movements (determined by the action of the protagonist), combined with invisible editing (demanded by realism)" which "tend to blur the limits of screen space." All of this is pretty basic, things like invisible editing and conventional cinematography are such staples of cinema they would be difficult to avoid when creating my own film.
Mulvey's final few paragraphs before her conclusion put into evidence her theories and show how Hitchcock has used the gaze and identification in a more intelligent way than most film makers. She that in many of his films he "uses the process of identification normally associated with ideological correctness and the recognition of established morality and shows up its perverted side." She also says that when scopophilia is concerned in his film the "hero portrays the contradictions and tensions experienced by the spectator". These ideas are pretty complex and I am not an expert on Hitchcock. The idea though of identification with a hero portraying contradictions and tensions experienced by the spectator is interesting especially when looked at with a parallel to my narrative, even just my final scene.
Mulvey's analysis is always interesting and helpful however in this case the ground work theory itself is more interesting to me than her conclusion or her actual aims. To me the idea of identification and the encoding of specific characters to identify with is important and whilst gender is always an important topic in cinema I think the identification of females with males isn't a problem, at the end of the day they are characters and in many cases the genders could be swapped without any trouble. The article has given me a lot of ideas for theories to write into my film and questions to address in the subtext. I am not too worried about my audience struggling to identify, as Mulvey points out it has been such a common thing in cinema, and questioned so little that it is almost automatic. Possibly the fun and interest in my film will be in playing with the identification of the audience with Andy and his interanl stuggles in a Hitcock kind of way.
1. "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (1975) Laura Mulvey Originally Published - Screen 16.3 Autumn 1975 pp. 6-18. Accessed on: http://imlportfolio.usc.edu/ctcs505/mulveyVisualPleasureNarrativeCinema.pdf
One of the first important points and possible stumbling blocks for me is that "the image recognised is conceived as the reflected body of the self, but its misrecognition as superior projects this body outside itself as an ideal ego, the alienated subject. which, re-introjected as an ego ideal, gives rise to the future
generation of identification with others." This very first comment about recognition and identification brings about the point that we, when looking and therefore watching, identify with a character that represents the ego. This presents a problem as many of the things that define the ego are actually the opposite of what defines a zombie, who is more like the id.
The other "aspect of the pleasurable structure of looking" is that of scopophilia and the pleasure gained by "using another person as an object of sexual stimulation through sight" again this will be difficult within a post apocalyptic world. However as this article points out the literal act of sex or even sexualised images isn't necessary often the presence of a woman is enough for spectators to gain gratification as Hollywood conditioning and all sorts of psychoanalytic, Freudian and Lacanian processes take over. I am planning on having a living female protagonist in my film that develops a connection with Andy so perhaps this will help my cause. Also I understand that Mulvey's article is saying that most of these processes are bad and that women shouldn't be used in this way and I do agree but a film is a film and not a political tool after all. I think that the education of people into filmic ideas such as these does more to solve the problem than to stop using them, people recognising the problem is better than film makers not using the techniques because they are just ways of writing media that people enjoy and if it stopped and nobody knew why there would be no progress, no learning and no development for society, within a year or two people would start again and no one would be any wiser. That little detour just justifies in my mind the use of these techniques, I'm not an anti feminist trying to force women and men to see women as sexual objects, thats not my aim but I do understand that my ideas do do this.
Skipping over the arguments of women as passive and icon (not particularly relevant to my study) Mulvey continues to explain how "the active male figure (the ego ideal of the identification process)" need the film to "reproduce as accurately as possible the so-called natural conditions of human perception." These include "Camera technology (as exempified by deep focus in particular) and camera movements (determined by the action of the protagonist), combined with invisible editing (demanded by realism)" which "tend to blur the limits of screen space." All of this is pretty basic, things like invisible editing and conventional cinematography are such staples of cinema they would be difficult to avoid when creating my own film.
Mulvey's final few paragraphs before her conclusion put into evidence her theories and show how Hitchcock has used the gaze and identification in a more intelligent way than most film makers. She that in many of his films he "uses the process of identification normally associated with ideological correctness and the recognition of established morality and shows up its perverted side." She also says that when scopophilia is concerned in his film the "hero portrays the contradictions and tensions experienced by the spectator". These ideas are pretty complex and I am not an expert on Hitchcock. The idea though of identification with a hero portraying contradictions and tensions experienced by the spectator is interesting especially when looked at with a parallel to my narrative, even just my final scene.
Mulvey's analysis is always interesting and helpful however in this case the ground work theory itself is more interesting to me than her conclusion or her actual aims. To me the idea of identification and the encoding of specific characters to identify with is important and whilst gender is always an important topic in cinema I think the identification of females with males isn't a problem, at the end of the day they are characters and in many cases the genders could be swapped without any trouble. The article has given me a lot of ideas for theories to write into my film and questions to address in the subtext. I am not too worried about my audience struggling to identify, as Mulvey points out it has been such a common thing in cinema, and questioned so little that it is almost automatic. Possibly the fun and interest in my film will be in playing with the identification of the audience with Andy and his interanl stuggles in a Hitcock kind of way.
1. "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (1975) Laura Mulvey Originally Published - Screen 16.3 Autumn 1975 pp. 6-18. Accessed on: http://imlportfolio.usc.edu/ctcs505/mulveyVisualPleasureNarrativeCinema.pdf
Sunday 9 December 2012
Colin (2008 Marc Price)
Colin is a low budget indie film by film tutor Marc Price about a zombie called Colin and his stumbling. Reportedly made on only £57 Colin has a few production issues such as the occasional issue with exposure and white balance but in general it is beautifully shot. It is commendable for making the post outbreak world feel so real on such a small budget, you really feel when watching it that the whole of the town and country has been infected and that is a difficult thing to achieve without too many wides. Even more spectacular than the blocking and shots is the story, one that is emotional, well paced and ultimately uplifting?
The film begins with Colin as a human, an important decision as it means the audience can identify with him a little before he becomes a zombie. The opening is a little overexposed as I have previously said but as a camera user I understand why as the shot moves from a dark doorway to a window, I think despite the exposure its the right shot to use, the tracking around as Colin walks past and the close up on the hammer actually brilliantly set the tone for the whole film as far as pacing, shooting and emotion are concerned. Our hero isn't to be a human for long however, Colin has already been bitten giving him a nasty wound on his arm, again this makes you sympathise as an audience member however the slightly cheesey and low quality blood mix virus thing isn't needed. After a brief but amusing battle with his house mate Colin is tired and dying, we see him worsen, get sicker and sicker until his death.
We all know thats not the end though as Colin turns into a Zombie, his rigor mortis breaking fingers crack as he wakes up from death. As an audience we pretty much see him turn, he is under coats I would imagine this little joke was added to lighten Colin's death and in lew of the money needed to do a visual transformation but we basically watch him change and the audience in a way turn with him. We don't get to see his face for a while, an important decision it makes the audience question how disfigured he will be after his transformation. The first time we do see his face is in a reflection, as Colin sees his face, curious, staring, we see that he isn't that different.
Colin spends his first night as a zombie comically trying to escape his front room, fooled by a door (a long running joke through the film) the transition between night and day is wickedly used and Alistair Kirton's performance as an angry Colin is perfect as he steps back, slips and inadvertently falls out of a window thus escaping the room. He clearly has know idea where to go as he pops up into frame and looks around him with a brilliantly confused expression, this again gets us to like Colin, who as he has only just become a zombie, isn't very good at being a zombie, he isn't scary or a murderer he doesn't have a clue what he is doing.
The next collection of shots, whilst setting the desolate scene of the world show again that Colin isn't all that viscous, firstly he ponders over a yellow lego piece. There are two possibly significant things about this, the first being a link to childhood and the idea that zombie-nes is a regression in the mind, and secondly that the piece is yellow, a reoccurring colour of importance to Colin in the film. He is then knocked to the ground by survivors before being denied a meal by an angry looking female zombie. When Colin finally does get to eat he doesn't actually kill the man he eats, no Colin's victim has fallen from a roof and is dying as Colin begins to eat. Despite his meal finding and the horrific nature of eating humans the guy Colin gets is already on his way out so we don't feel bad for the guy, its not like Colin hunted him down, so Colin is furthered into the audiences hearts once again.
The next slightly comical section makes the audience question how much of his past life Colin remembers, as he pulls off a guys (a guy that is being eaten by someone else so Colin still isnt a killer) ear to eat and ends up with his headphones and mp3 player. The Unfilmable Life of Terry Gilliam is playing on the headphones and Colin listens happily and even picks the headphones back up after his next meal. Obviously the Colin liking music makes the audience smile, the idea that he enjoys something that isnt eating people or remembers something from before give the audience some sort of hope and satisfaction. So when the batteries die and Colin gets mad it is almost impossible not to sympathise with poor Colin.
Another important factor in the likeability of Colin is how the remaining survivors act towards him, this is shown in the next scene where two survivors are looking for zombies to loot and spot Colin's nice shoes. The idea that thieves steal from zombies is brilliant and the way they pin down Colin seems cruel and brutal. However Colin's sister is around and saves Colin from getting cold feet but unfortunately gets bitten in the process. This is the first bit of true back story we get for Colin, we now know that he has a sister that survived, through her the audience can empathise and see the tragedy of Colin becoming a zombie, even zombies have families!
The soundtrack to this film is absolute brilliant and highlights the desolation and isolation in the next section in which Colin simply wonders around, past survivors and buildings, chasing pigeons and just being a nice zombie in general. One of my favourite shots is a wide of Colin who bumbles across the shot before someone runs past him causing him to walk all the way across the screen again who finally decides he isnt going to catch up and turns again to go the way he was. The final of the cutaway style shots of Colin wondering is of him looking up at a road sign that points two ways, this could signify loads, but with its recurrence later the it mainly serves as a plot device.
Colin stumbles across a house under siege (a Romero reference for sure as the upstairs room in the house has a sign saying George's room) and with a video camera an inset narrative of "my awesome zombie movie" can be and is shown. This nice little section seems to show some nice special effects whilst parodying classic horror with its token black and final escaping female. A female which is clad in yellow! Colin follows her to the next location, a dark creepy cellar of a sadistic psycho who cuts up zombies and takes photos, where does he keep these experiments? The cellar! I like that this section shows that zombies aren't the worst things in an outbreak of the virus, it also gives some real creeps a chance to do the kind of things they have always wanted to and sometimes those people are the real monsters, not Colin. It is funny however that Colin doesn't actually come to the rescue of the girl as she is strangled to death but just wonders past, out of the cellar and back into the wider world. This scene basically just shows that not only is Colin not evil but the bad things he does aren't as bad as the things humans do in context, well some of them.
The next scene is one of the biggest plot points as Colin is kidnapped, at first we don't see who by, this bit is very carefully filmed to make us experience the kidnapping in the same way Colin does, with confusion and terror. An absolutely amazing tracking shot takes us into the bathroom Colin is tied up in and through a blood splattered mirror reveals his captor, his sister. Colin is probably his most angriest in this scene, the sheer emotion of the scene between Colin and his sister whilst she tries to make him remember her is brilliant personally it made me feel sorry for Linda as she is going to become a zombie but more so it made me feel sorry for Colin as we can clearly see how much he has lost since becoming a zombie. The photographs he carries with him show how much he did once care and the shots of the empty bathroom, dripping tap, dangling shoelace (that Colin was tied up with) are the most cinematic of the film and have a sorrowful feeling of loss about them. We next follow Colin in a Hessian bag all the way to his old home and to his mother, who Linda is convinced he will remember. The viewpoint of Colin is the viewpoint of the audience for this whole section from the bag to the kitchen which through glass Colin can see his family, separated from him. His bangs on the glass as he tries to get to them are clearly because he wants to eat them... but visually it is heartbreaking to see him banging on the window, trying to get to all that he has lost, his family and his humanity. The shot is beautifully framed as it ends with him slowly tapping away at the window his arm framed to hug his mother who stands at the window. Also evident at this point is the boyfriend of his sister who clearly dislikes him and is violent towards him, fair enough Colin did bite his girlfriend but in general we as an audience also dislike him. Colin spends the night brainlessly staring at a tv, a quick comment on society?
Colin is no longer alone, his sister is also a zombie, thrown into the room with him and they are hidden behind newspaper articles taped to the windows by their mother. A nice way of getting across some exposition in a highly emotional scene. One might think they are trapped in the house, however Colin's sister has the brain and motor control Colin lacks and opens the doors for him, letting him stumble down the step and back out in the open. Upsettingly Zombies recognise each other even less than zombies recognise humans and the two go their separate ways.
Our final group of survivors, an aggressive mob like group burst onto scene with an explosive, knocking Colin and his fellow horde of zombies down, the ensuing carnage is a little confusing but bloody for sure. The leader of the gang is clear, a hard, solemn looking man wielding a catapult with razor blade ammo, as the chaos of the battle continues he descends on Colin, pulling out a hammer not dissimilar to the hammer Colin once used. Colin is seemingly killed and the group is left to deal with the clean up of the battle, when asked what to do about the people that have been bitten, the leader harshly but simply replies "deal with it". This dark and gritty group of survivors are largely emotionless or just scared (depending on which group member) and whilst they are not demonised their brutal gang killing of those that have been bitten again goes to show that zombies aren't the only threat. Not to mention THEY KILLED COLIN!
Actually they didn't, I don't know how but Colin managed to survive with a half blown off face, and he travels though picturesque snow to a house and inside that house to a sign, yes that very same road sign at which point the story jumps back in time to when Colin was still a human. He berates the girl and owner of the house Laura for leaving the door open ironically saying "if you leave it open one of those thnigs can get in here". They fight off a zombie that was in the upstairs bathroom together but Laura gets bitten, you see her collect some photo's some of which Colin has in the future, and her ring tone is the very same song Colin was listening too as a zombie on the headphones. It is a little unclear whether this was Colin's girlfriend or just a survivor he came across but the YELLOW wearing Laura signifies a lot of the things Colin has pondered over as a zombie. He emotionally holds her as she dies, as she wakes up and after getting bitten holds her down and kills her. This sequence is brilliantly shot and acted and brings a tear to the eye. As he covers her face with her hair the times switch between zombie and non zombie Colin and we see zombie Colin knelt beside the body of Laura, perhaps that was where he was trying to get to the whole time, who knows but you definitely feel there is a good reason he has come here and that he does remember something. To me that is an uplifting end to Zombie Colin's story and as for living Colin, we see him walk back home and as the camera pans up we see his house mate in the window and the circular narrative of Colin is nicely wrapped up.
Colin is an absolutely brilliant film, it manages to get the audience to empathise with Colin and really experience a day in the life of a zombie. This could be boring and slow but its not, its paced perfectly and given enough of a plot to make it truly interesting not only that but its so cleverly written there is character development in Colin without making him some kind of super zombie. Colin follows many zombie conventions but looks at them from the other side of the coin, analysing what it is like to be a zombie, it is an intelligent and sympathetic look at the monsters we think we know so well. The only thing I personally would like to do differently with my own film is to cut out any sections in which we see the zombie before they are infected, I think it will be more of a challenge to get the audience to identify with the character without seeing him as a relatable human
We all know thats not the end though as Colin turns into a Zombie, his rigor mortis breaking fingers crack as he wakes up from death. As an audience we pretty much see him turn, he is under coats I would imagine this little joke was added to lighten Colin's death and in lew of the money needed to do a visual transformation but we basically watch him change and the audience in a way turn with him. We don't get to see his face for a while, an important decision it makes the audience question how disfigured he will be after his transformation. The first time we do see his face is in a reflection, as Colin sees his face, curious, staring, we see that he isn't that different.
Colin spends his first night as a zombie comically trying to escape his front room, fooled by a door (a long running joke through the film) the transition between night and day is wickedly used and Alistair Kirton's performance as an angry Colin is perfect as he steps back, slips and inadvertently falls out of a window thus escaping the room. He clearly has know idea where to go as he pops up into frame and looks around him with a brilliantly confused expression, this again gets us to like Colin, who as he has only just become a zombie, isn't very good at being a zombie, he isn't scary or a murderer he doesn't have a clue what he is doing.
The next collection of shots, whilst setting the desolate scene of the world show again that Colin isn't all that viscous, firstly he ponders over a yellow lego piece. There are two possibly significant things about this, the first being a link to childhood and the idea that zombie-nes is a regression in the mind, and secondly that the piece is yellow, a reoccurring colour of importance to Colin in the film. He is then knocked to the ground by survivors before being denied a meal by an angry looking female zombie. When Colin finally does get to eat he doesn't actually kill the man he eats, no Colin's victim has fallen from a roof and is dying as Colin begins to eat. Despite his meal finding and the horrific nature of eating humans the guy Colin gets is already on his way out so we don't feel bad for the guy, its not like Colin hunted him down, so Colin is furthered into the audiences hearts once again.
The next slightly comical section makes the audience question how much of his past life Colin remembers, as he pulls off a guys (a guy that is being eaten by someone else so Colin still isnt a killer) ear to eat and ends up with his headphones and mp3 player. The Unfilmable Life of Terry Gilliam is playing on the headphones and Colin listens happily and even picks the headphones back up after his next meal. Obviously the Colin liking music makes the audience smile, the idea that he enjoys something that isnt eating people or remembers something from before give the audience some sort of hope and satisfaction. So when the batteries die and Colin gets mad it is almost impossible not to sympathise with poor Colin.
Another important factor in the likeability of Colin is how the remaining survivors act towards him, this is shown in the next scene where two survivors are looking for zombies to loot and spot Colin's nice shoes. The idea that thieves steal from zombies is brilliant and the way they pin down Colin seems cruel and brutal. However Colin's sister is around and saves Colin from getting cold feet but unfortunately gets bitten in the process. This is the first bit of true back story we get for Colin, we now know that he has a sister that survived, through her the audience can empathise and see the tragedy of Colin becoming a zombie, even zombies have families!
The soundtrack to this film is absolute brilliant and highlights the desolation and isolation in the next section in which Colin simply wonders around, past survivors and buildings, chasing pigeons and just being a nice zombie in general. One of my favourite shots is a wide of Colin who bumbles across the shot before someone runs past him causing him to walk all the way across the screen again who finally decides he isnt going to catch up and turns again to go the way he was. The final of the cutaway style shots of Colin wondering is of him looking up at a road sign that points two ways, this could signify loads, but with its recurrence later the it mainly serves as a plot device.
Colin stumbles across a house under siege (a Romero reference for sure as the upstairs room in the house has a sign saying George's room) and with a video camera an inset narrative of "my awesome zombie movie" can be and is shown. This nice little section seems to show some nice special effects whilst parodying classic horror with its token black and final escaping female. A female which is clad in yellow! Colin follows her to the next location, a dark creepy cellar of a sadistic psycho who cuts up zombies and takes photos, where does he keep these experiments? The cellar! I like that this section shows that zombies aren't the worst things in an outbreak of the virus, it also gives some real creeps a chance to do the kind of things they have always wanted to and sometimes those people are the real monsters, not Colin. It is funny however that Colin doesn't actually come to the rescue of the girl as she is strangled to death but just wonders past, out of the cellar and back into the wider world. This scene basically just shows that not only is Colin not evil but the bad things he does aren't as bad as the things humans do in context, well some of them.
The next scene is one of the biggest plot points as Colin is kidnapped, at first we don't see who by, this bit is very carefully filmed to make us experience the kidnapping in the same way Colin does, with confusion and terror. An absolutely amazing tracking shot takes us into the bathroom Colin is tied up in and through a blood splattered mirror reveals his captor, his sister. Colin is probably his most angriest in this scene, the sheer emotion of the scene between Colin and his sister whilst she tries to make him remember her is brilliant personally it made me feel sorry for Linda as she is going to become a zombie but more so it made me feel sorry for Colin as we can clearly see how much he has lost since becoming a zombie. The photographs he carries with him show how much he did once care and the shots of the empty bathroom, dripping tap, dangling shoelace (that Colin was tied up with) are the most cinematic of the film and have a sorrowful feeling of loss about them. We next follow Colin in a Hessian bag all the way to his old home and to his mother, who Linda is convinced he will remember. The viewpoint of Colin is the viewpoint of the audience for this whole section from the bag to the kitchen which through glass Colin can see his family, separated from him. His bangs on the glass as he tries to get to them are clearly because he wants to eat them... but visually it is heartbreaking to see him banging on the window, trying to get to all that he has lost, his family and his humanity. The shot is beautifully framed as it ends with him slowly tapping away at the window his arm framed to hug his mother who stands at the window. Also evident at this point is the boyfriend of his sister who clearly dislikes him and is violent towards him, fair enough Colin did bite his girlfriend but in general we as an audience also dislike him. Colin spends the night brainlessly staring at a tv, a quick comment on society?
Colin is no longer alone, his sister is also a zombie, thrown into the room with him and they are hidden behind newspaper articles taped to the windows by their mother. A nice way of getting across some exposition in a highly emotional scene. One might think they are trapped in the house, however Colin's sister has the brain and motor control Colin lacks and opens the doors for him, letting him stumble down the step and back out in the open. Upsettingly Zombies recognise each other even less than zombies recognise humans and the two go their separate ways.
Our final group of survivors, an aggressive mob like group burst onto scene with an explosive, knocking Colin and his fellow horde of zombies down, the ensuing carnage is a little confusing but bloody for sure. The leader of the gang is clear, a hard, solemn looking man wielding a catapult with razor blade ammo, as the chaos of the battle continues he descends on Colin, pulling out a hammer not dissimilar to the hammer Colin once used. Colin is seemingly killed and the group is left to deal with the clean up of the battle, when asked what to do about the people that have been bitten, the leader harshly but simply replies "deal with it". This dark and gritty group of survivors are largely emotionless or just scared (depending on which group member) and whilst they are not demonised their brutal gang killing of those that have been bitten again goes to show that zombies aren't the only threat. Not to mention THEY KILLED COLIN!
Actually they didn't, I don't know how but Colin managed to survive with a half blown off face, and he travels though picturesque snow to a house and inside that house to a sign, yes that very same road sign at which point the story jumps back in time to when Colin was still a human. He berates the girl and owner of the house Laura for leaving the door open ironically saying "if you leave it open one of those thnigs can get in here". They fight off a zombie that was in the upstairs bathroom together but Laura gets bitten, you see her collect some photo's some of which Colin has in the future, and her ring tone is the very same song Colin was listening too as a zombie on the headphones. It is a little unclear whether this was Colin's girlfriend or just a survivor he came across but the YELLOW wearing Laura signifies a lot of the things Colin has pondered over as a zombie. He emotionally holds her as she dies, as she wakes up and after getting bitten holds her down and kills her. This sequence is brilliantly shot and acted and brings a tear to the eye. As he covers her face with her hair the times switch between zombie and non zombie Colin and we see zombie Colin knelt beside the body of Laura, perhaps that was where he was trying to get to the whole time, who knows but you definitely feel there is a good reason he has come here and that he does remember something. To me that is an uplifting end to Zombie Colin's story and as for living Colin, we see him walk back home and as the camera pans up we see his house mate in the window and the circular narrative of Colin is nicely wrapped up.
Colin is an absolutely brilliant film, it manages to get the audience to empathise with Colin and really experience a day in the life of a zombie. This could be boring and slow but its not, its paced perfectly and given enough of a plot to make it truly interesting not only that but its so cleverly written there is character development in Colin without making him some kind of super zombie. Colin follows many zombie conventions but looks at them from the other side of the coin, analysing what it is like to be a zombie, it is an intelligent and sympathetic look at the monsters we think we know so well. The only thing I personally would like to do differently with my own film is to cut out any sections in which we see the zombie before they are infected, I think it will be more of a challenge to get the audience to identify with the character without seeing him as a relatable human
Maya Tutorial
Today we used Maya and much like After effects it is massive and a little overwhelming! You can practically make whole animated movies on the program it is that immense, which makes it quite difficult to navigate and know what will effect the animation in the way you want it.
The easiest thing we did and I think the only thing I could confidently do again is to change the menu to polygons, make a primitive polygon and maneuver it using the R, W and E keys.We also looked at rendering, saving using fluid containers to create fire and explosions and all sorts of variations but if I wanted to do any of those things again I think looking at online tutorials would be my best bet, my notes make no sense. Again what the session has shown me are the possibilities and the tools that are at our disposal, with the use of animation there are a lot of new creative things that I could do that I am itching to try out and write into scripts.
The easiest thing we did and I think the only thing I could confidently do again is to change the menu to polygons, make a primitive polygon and maneuver it using the R, W and E keys.We also looked at rendering, saving using fluid containers to create fire and explosions and all sorts of variations but if I wanted to do any of those things again I think looking at online tutorials would be my best bet, my notes make no sense. Again what the session has shown me are the possibilities and the tools that are at our disposal, with the use of animation there are a lot of new creative things that I could do that I am itching to try out and write into scripts.
Friday 7 December 2012
Fido (2006 Andrew Currie)
Fido is a fantastically funny zombie comedy that is set in suburban America (or Canada, its a Canadian film) set in an alternate 50's in which the humans won the zombie wars and enslave zombies with domestication collars. I didn't expect comedy at all, Fido was not what I was expecting but I was pleasantly surprised.
The film opens with a news informmercial with footage not unlike Night of the Living Dead (1968 Romro) however it quickly deviates, educating the audience in the universe of the film in which radiation created zombies and the founder of omnipotent Zomcon Dr Geiger (which I hope is a reference to H R Giger) created domestication collar's to enslave them. The oversaturated colour palette and white picket fences of the setting immediately signify the American dream and the idealised suburban America that comes along with it. This is a strong theme throughout the film and has many signifiers including the typical atomic family.
The child of the atomic family is our main character, Timmy, a young "weird" boy, bullied by Zomcon cadets and shunned by his parents. As he travels home one of many funny subtle zombie situations occurs, its as simple as a zombie being a lollipop man with a "slow" sign.
Also evident is a subtext of slavery and racism, there is no attempt to hide it, Timmy's mother comes out with some brilliant lines such as "Now we're not the only ones on the street without one" which clearly show the ownership and possession of zombies and how they are a commodity, an accessory to signify wealth and status much like black slaves would have been in America in the 1800's.
The basic storyline of the film is about a typical 50's American atomic family complete with emotional repression and now a zombie! The father is specifically written as a slight antagonist, this leaves the real role of a father open. He is afraid of zombies, god forbid, and dislikes the new family slave/ pet who they chain in the garden. He openly shocks the zombie with a remote, for negative re-enforcement and for fun, his fear turns into anger in a classic display of male emotional repression. This is again apparent in the multiple times he says things like "why are we talking about this? I thought we didn't need to talk about this!". His treatment of his son is awful, funny and over the top, so when the Zomcon bullies attack Timmy again his pet zombie saves him and begins to fill the space of father for Timmy giving his "son" the game of catch he wanted. Well almost, he's not very good. It is at this point he gets a name, I think its extremely important for the audience to have a name for the zombie as it gives him an identity and the name Fido (much like a dogs name) removes element of horror from his character.
Another important factor in the audiences sympathy for Fido is that he remembers what he was before, at least a little. When his collar malfunctions Timmy takes him to Mr Theopolis an ex Zomcon scientist with a questionable relationship with his zombie Tammy, who fixes his collar thus quenching his hunger, this means he wont get taken away. When there Fido grabs a cigarette and shows that he sort of remembers how to smoke, this shows he isn't all gone, he isnt a complete monster.
The next big step for Fido is to win the mother of the family over to his side, again this doesn't take too much effort as the relationship between Timmy's mother and father isn't exactly loving and emotional, its barely even there. The father doesn't even notice his wife is pregnant and they clearly sleep in separate beds, and so when Fido shows emotion by smelling Timmy's mothers perfume she is naturally flattered, it is of course the animalistic part of humans that remain but perhaps thats a thought better left for Mr Theopolis. Timmy and his mothers support of Zombies and Fido is cemented when at a funeral, many of which Timmy's father frequents to his pleasure, Timmy's mother announces to him that when they die "Timmy and I are going Zombie". A simple line that shows the main protagonists are on the side of Fido and the audience should be too, funerals after all are only liked by the cruel and weird father and nobody wants to be on his side.
The emotional high point of the film is on the way, as Timmy and Fido are out playing he is captured by the Zomcon cadet bullies who plan to kill Fido and act as though they saved Timmy from Fido and caught the Zombie that ate Mrs Henderson and sparked a small outbreak. It inevitably goes wrong as one of the cadets shoots the other and Fido attacks the final bully. Fido cant untie Timmy, his fingers aren't dexterous enough so he goes to get Timmy's mother in a hilarious parallel to Lassie as his mother asks "Where is Timmy?" and after being lead the correct way remarks "You wonderful crazy wonderful zombie". This act of complete heroism is a little inrealistic for a classic zombie but what a hero it makes of Fido, if the audience aren't on his side by now they never will be. Fido is definitely on Timmy's mothers side, when her husband refuses to relax and dance with her she dances with Fido instead, establishing a personal, maybe romantic relationship with Fido and Timmy's mother.
This is followed by Fido being taken away for eating Mrs Henderson returning the families life to normal. Timmy's father attempts to fix the relationship with his son by giving him a gun, bfore the legal carrying age of 12 and in an emotionally stunted scene explains "You have to get over feelings. being alive is what counts". Timmy inevitably goes back to save his surrogate father Fido from a Zomcom factory with the help of Mr Theopolis. He is followed by his parents and all carnage ensues as a breakout occurs. The real antagonist of the film Mr Bottoms is a security man, a big wig in the Zomcon company and a Zombie war hero, the strong figure head style man of the 40's, a symbol of power and oppression, and he is there to stop Timmy rescuing Fido. For his disobedience Mr Bottom locks Timmy out of the fence that keeps everyone safe, and into the "wild zone" where zombies roam free. At this point the Timmys fathers want the same thing, his actual father has taken control he enlightening tells his wife "Im a good father, my father tried to eat me, I nevr tried to eat Timmy" and when she asks for the gun, as she has proven she is gun competent he says "no U want to, I am a good father". Teaming up with Fido he saves Timmy but Timmy's father and Mr Bottom die.
The film ends with Timmy's fathers funeral, his mother happily points out "its what he wanted" before settling into family life with Fido. Finally even Mr Bottom turns into a zombie which his daughter is "just calling him daddy", even the worst of fathers and the most strict of people can be nice once zombified.
Whilst Fido wasn't what I was expecting I thoroughly enjoyed it, the spoofing of traditional idealogical America with zombie inserts is genius and the performance Billy Connoly gives as Fido is inspiring. Fido is a different genre to most zombie films but the character development or at least the audience development from thinking of zombies as brainless slaves to characters and is a narrative I would love to emulate.
The film opens with a news informmercial with footage not unlike Night of the Living Dead (1968 Romro) however it quickly deviates, educating the audience in the universe of the film in which radiation created zombies and the founder of omnipotent Zomcon Dr Geiger (which I hope is a reference to H R Giger) created domestication collar's to enslave them. The oversaturated colour palette and white picket fences of the setting immediately signify the American dream and the idealised suburban America that comes along with it. This is a strong theme throughout the film and has many signifiers including the typical atomic family.
The child of the atomic family is our main character, Timmy, a young "weird" boy, bullied by Zomcon cadets and shunned by his parents. As he travels home one of many funny subtle zombie situations occurs, its as simple as a zombie being a lollipop man with a "slow" sign.
Also evident is a subtext of slavery and racism, there is no attempt to hide it, Timmy's mother comes out with some brilliant lines such as "Now we're not the only ones on the street without one" which clearly show the ownership and possession of zombies and how they are a commodity, an accessory to signify wealth and status much like black slaves would have been in America in the 1800's.
The basic storyline of the film is about a typical 50's American atomic family complete with emotional repression and now a zombie! The father is specifically written as a slight antagonist, this leaves the real role of a father open. He is afraid of zombies, god forbid, and dislikes the new family slave/ pet who they chain in the garden. He openly shocks the zombie with a remote, for negative re-enforcement and for fun, his fear turns into anger in a classic display of male emotional repression. This is again apparent in the multiple times he says things like "why are we talking about this? I thought we didn't need to talk about this!". His treatment of his son is awful, funny and over the top, so when the Zomcon bullies attack Timmy again his pet zombie saves him and begins to fill the space of father for Timmy giving his "son" the game of catch he wanted. Well almost, he's not very good. It is at this point he gets a name, I think its extremely important for the audience to have a name for the zombie as it gives him an identity and the name Fido (much like a dogs name) removes element of horror from his character.
Another important factor in the audiences sympathy for Fido is that he remembers what he was before, at least a little. When his collar malfunctions Timmy takes him to Mr Theopolis an ex Zomcon scientist with a questionable relationship with his zombie Tammy, who fixes his collar thus quenching his hunger, this means he wont get taken away. When there Fido grabs a cigarette and shows that he sort of remembers how to smoke, this shows he isn't all gone, he isnt a complete monster.
The next big step for Fido is to win the mother of the family over to his side, again this doesn't take too much effort as the relationship between Timmy's mother and father isn't exactly loving and emotional, its barely even there. The father doesn't even notice his wife is pregnant and they clearly sleep in separate beds, and so when Fido shows emotion by smelling Timmy's mothers perfume she is naturally flattered, it is of course the animalistic part of humans that remain but perhaps thats a thought better left for Mr Theopolis. Timmy and his mothers support of Zombies and Fido is cemented when at a funeral, many of which Timmy's father frequents to his pleasure, Timmy's mother announces to him that when they die "Timmy and I are going Zombie". A simple line that shows the main protagonists are on the side of Fido and the audience should be too, funerals after all are only liked by the cruel and weird father and nobody wants to be on his side.
The emotional high point of the film is on the way, as Timmy and Fido are out playing he is captured by the Zomcon cadet bullies who plan to kill Fido and act as though they saved Timmy from Fido and caught the Zombie that ate Mrs Henderson and sparked a small outbreak. It inevitably goes wrong as one of the cadets shoots the other and Fido attacks the final bully. Fido cant untie Timmy, his fingers aren't dexterous enough so he goes to get Timmy's mother in a hilarious parallel to Lassie as his mother asks "Where is Timmy?" and after being lead the correct way remarks "You wonderful crazy wonderful zombie". This act of complete heroism is a little inrealistic for a classic zombie but what a hero it makes of Fido, if the audience aren't on his side by now they never will be. Fido is definitely on Timmy's mothers side, when her husband refuses to relax and dance with her she dances with Fido instead, establishing a personal, maybe romantic relationship with Fido and Timmy's mother.
This is followed by Fido being taken away for eating Mrs Henderson returning the families life to normal. Timmy's father attempts to fix the relationship with his son by giving him a gun, bfore the legal carrying age of 12 and in an emotionally stunted scene explains "You have to get over feelings. being alive is what counts". Timmy inevitably goes back to save his surrogate father Fido from a Zomcom factory with the help of Mr Theopolis. He is followed by his parents and all carnage ensues as a breakout occurs. The real antagonist of the film Mr Bottoms is a security man, a big wig in the Zomcon company and a Zombie war hero, the strong figure head style man of the 40's, a symbol of power and oppression, and he is there to stop Timmy rescuing Fido. For his disobedience Mr Bottom locks Timmy out of the fence that keeps everyone safe, and into the "wild zone" where zombies roam free. At this point the Timmys fathers want the same thing, his actual father has taken control he enlightening tells his wife "Im a good father, my father tried to eat me, I nevr tried to eat Timmy" and when she asks for the gun, as she has proven she is gun competent he says "no U want to, I am a good father". Teaming up with Fido he saves Timmy but Timmy's father and Mr Bottom die.
The film ends with Timmy's fathers funeral, his mother happily points out "its what he wanted" before settling into family life with Fido. Finally even Mr Bottom turns into a zombie which his daughter is "just calling him daddy", even the worst of fathers and the most strict of people can be nice once zombified.
Whilst Fido wasn't what I was expecting I thoroughly enjoyed it, the spoofing of traditional idealogical America with zombie inserts is genius and the performance Billy Connoly gives as Fido is inspiring. Fido is a different genre to most zombie films but the character development or at least the audience development from thinking of zombies as brainless slaves to characters and is a narrative I would love to emulate.
Wednesday 5 December 2012
Audience reception of Zombies
Some of the more interesting and convention breaking zombie films in the past have addressed the idea that Zombies aren't all that evil and focus on trying to get the audience to empathise with sympathetic zombies. This is done by Romero in films as early as Day of the Dead (1985) with Professor Logan's learned child Bub, who's ability to learn and to follow orders shows that he is something more than what we expect from a normal zombie. Despite the awful human flesh positive re-enforcement Logan uses to teach Bub the audience ultimately root for him as he acts out in revenge against Captain Rhodes the antagonist of the film who has killed Bub's mentor and surrogate father Professor Logan.
It is done more solidly and as the whole point of the film in Colin and in Fido and although I have yet to see both films I love Colin and think that the angle of trying to get sympathy for zombies is an excellent twist in the zombie convention and an interesting way to go.
Obviously it is Romero's style of zombie that is usually sympathised with, I can't imagine anyone sympathising with the rage filled monsters of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later or Paul Andersons zombies in the early Resident Evil. In these films the emphasis is on horror, fear and action, not the characters or the zombies, they are generally just cannon fodder to shoot at, things for characters to get chased by or bodies to make the audience jump. These are clearly easy options and an audiences first reaction to a zombie is always fear. This may be because zombies are us after our death, they are literally the physical representation of our death. Not only that but they can kill so easily, not just kill but turn you into one of them. Another factor that has increased with time is the level of gore, some zombies look so awful that the initial response is shock and disgust. Their bestial nature, forever hungry, simple and animalistic is another route of the audiences fear, it represents a move backwards down the evolutionary ladder to something less capable. Finally their hunger for flesh is truly horrifying, their is nothing scarier than something wanting to do such an unnatural act as eating you, turning you into prey for them to devour.
The fact that with clever storytelling and filmmaking all of these natural responses can be combated to make the audience empathise with the zombies in such a way that the hero can become the protagonist. Another important factor in doing this is presenting the audience with an antagonist to counter the 'heroic' zombie such as Captain Rhodes in Day of the Dead. I find this role reversal fascinating and worth exploring as a topic for my own film as it involves clever manipulation of the audience. I think making this kind of story would be a fun and interesting challenge and I am looking forward to watching and analysing some other films that do the same.
It is done more solidly and as the whole point of the film in Colin and in Fido and although I have yet to see both films I love Colin and think that the angle of trying to get sympathy for zombies is an excellent twist in the zombie convention and an interesting way to go.
Obviously it is Romero's style of zombie that is usually sympathised with, I can't imagine anyone sympathising with the rage filled monsters of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later or Paul Andersons zombies in the early Resident Evil. In these films the emphasis is on horror, fear and action, not the characters or the zombies, they are generally just cannon fodder to shoot at, things for characters to get chased by or bodies to make the audience jump. These are clearly easy options and an audiences first reaction to a zombie is always fear. This may be because zombies are us after our death, they are literally the physical representation of our death. Not only that but they can kill so easily, not just kill but turn you into one of them. Another factor that has increased with time is the level of gore, some zombies look so awful that the initial response is shock and disgust. Their bestial nature, forever hungry, simple and animalistic is another route of the audiences fear, it represents a move backwards down the evolutionary ladder to something less capable. Finally their hunger for flesh is truly horrifying, their is nothing scarier than something wanting to do such an unnatural act as eating you, turning you into prey for them to devour.
The fact that with clever storytelling and filmmaking all of these natural responses can be combated to make the audience empathise with the zombies in such a way that the hero can become the protagonist. Another important factor in doing this is presenting the audience with an antagonist to counter the 'heroic' zombie such as Captain Rhodes in Day of the Dead. I find this role reversal fascinating and worth exploring as a topic for my own film as it involves clever manipulation of the audience. I think making this kind of story would be a fun and interesting challenge and I am looking forward to watching and analysing some other films that do the same.
Night of the Living Dead (1968 George A Romero)
Night of the Living Dead is simply THE classic zombie movie, it is undoubtedly the film that sparked the modern zombie genre. Inspired the siege of the house in Richard Matheson's vampire novel I Am Legend, George A Romero created his own house siege in Night with the stars being surrounded by ghoulish humans back from the dead and hungry for human flesh, these ghouls were later identified by the press as Zombies and that is what they became. Night is a story all about power, made in the 60's a time of cultural fear and anger over the Vietnam War the comparison between the ghouls and 'gooks', Vietnamese, isn't difficult to see but its not the only reading to be made. Romero himself says
"To me, the zombies have always just been zombies. They've always been a cigar. When I first made Night of the Living Dead, it got analysed and over analysed way out of proportion. The zombies were written about as if they represented Nixon’s Silent Majority or whatever. But I never thought about it that way. My stories are about humans and how they react, or fail to react, or react stupidly. I'm pointing the finger at us, not at the zombies. I try to respect and sympathize with the zombies as much as possible."
So maybe Zombie's aren't an encoded metaphor for anything and more a simple plot device however that doesn't stop anyone from decoding many messages from the film. It seems however that it is the humans that need to be analysed and read into arguments of race, family and gender are clear.
The film opens with a clear American flag, a simple signifier that the characters in the film, along with the zombies, represent all of America which gives significance to the first conversation. Barbra and her brother discuss why they bother driving down to the cemetery in the town they used to live to plant a wreath on the grave of their father about whom Johnny remarks coldly "I don't even remember what the guy looked like". This clear breakdown of the atomic family is representative of the time in which traditional values were disintegrating and foreshadows the later scene in which Karen Cooper kills her parents in an even more extreme signifier. Another of the traditional values to be attacked in this first scene is the church, when Johnny sees Barbra praying he simply says in a dismissing tone "Come on church was this morning". After Johnny is attacked Barbra begins to flee in a hysteric manner thus displaying her generally passive and pathetic character that could be accused of being a typical horror female. There is a lot of evidence against this however specifically in Stephen Harpers "They are us" Representations of women in George Romero's Living Dead Series" in which Harper excuses Barbra's character as either an attack on how patriarchal society makes women or a satirical comment on typical horror heroines.
As Barbra escapes one stumbling Boris Karloff esque zombie into thee refuge of an abandoned house that becomes the main set and the victim of the aforementioned siege. The lighting within the house is spectacular, the black and white visuals are lit in moody squares as if through the windows, the spooky effect is perfect and haunting. A few random shots of animal heads frighten Barbra further showing her hysteria and possibly referencing Hitchock's Psycho from 1960 furthering the possibility that Romero is mocking classic horror/ thriller females.
Barbra is saved however by the main hero of the film, Ben an African American man who stamps his authority on the situation and kills zombies left right and centre. Although Ben was never written as a black character he is one of the first back leads in film that don't have a romantic partner and his presence alludes to the ever present zombie theme of racism. Ben's later death is a harrowing experience and Romero himself has said that it isn't a reference to Martin Luther King's assassination but when he was transporting the film to the studio to be printed he heard of MLK's assassination and thought there was a creepy parallel. Ben's character takes control and boards up the house before telling Barbra and the audience his story which is amazingly delivered and evokes fear and empathy in the audience.
The reliance of our survivors on the media becomes apparent as they perch by the radio which imparts small gems of knowledge calling the zombie outbreak an "explosion of mass homicide in which victims are "partially eaten by their attackers". Even Ben is reliant on some greater force as he believes that if they survive long enough "someone is bound to come and get us" thus highlighting the public's reliance on government to save them from situations of danger. Whether Romero sees this as positive or negative is unclear as when people do come to help they do the exact opposite and kill Ben. Romero has said in commentary on his other films that he thinks its funny that if this ever happened it would only be the government and the red necks that would be able to defend themselves, an interesting if not frightening idea.
The arrival of more zombies outside the house is clear as they stumble along eating bugs and bark to delay their hunger. Clearly seen in the foreground is a naked female zombie, this goes some way towards supporting the argument that Night is a feminist film as the woman is in no way sexualised but just there wondering round like the others. With the arrival of more zombies comes the arrival of Harry, Tom and Judy from the cellar down below, after hearing the noioses and hiding they finally decided to find out what was going on, finding Ben and beginning the ever present power struggle between Ben and Harry, Black and White. Ben never falters simply saying "go back down into the cellar, you can be boss down there."
The breakdown of the modern family is contained in the cellar, within the family of the Coopers, father Harry, mother Helen and ill daughter Karen are hiding out in a hope to survive. They however are not happy as Helen states "We may not enjoy living together, but dying together isn't going to solve anything" and ironic foreshadowing again of their soon to be death. Again the television and media leads them astray or at very least leads them as the Vietnam like footage of search and destroy missions tells them that their best chance is to get to a refugee centre. Whether it is right or not Ben is willing to do it because "the television says its the right thing to do" Ben saying "television" not scientist or government official is extremely important as it shows that he doesn't so much believe the specialist as he does the media that control his actions.
Ben's plot to save them by fuelling the fire fails and the young love of Tom and Judy fails and dies with is, a pessimistic statement about relationships and sacrifice. Harry sees this as a chance to overtake Ben, he believes he has gone too far and when Ben drops his gun to deal with a Zombie it is snatched by Harry. He however doesn't have the guts to shoot Ben who wrestles the gun from him and shoots him. Its every man for himself as the Zombies break the house down, the women however band together as Barbra finally starts to be productive. Her heroism is shortlived however as Johnny arrives at the house and pulls her into the horde.
Meanwhile Ben retreats into the basement where Karen has been eating her father and stabbed her mother to death in a horrifying scene. The trowel scene is brilliant, the slanted lighting canted camera and screeching soundtrack all make for a horrifying death, all the more scary for the corrupted innocence of the young girl Karen Cooper, who destroys the atomic family completely.
Ben does survive the onslaught by killing the Coopers and hiding in the basement as per Harry's original suggestion. However as he steps into the light in the morning he is killed by a search and destroy squad who believe he is a zombie, this scene bares a stark resemblance to lynch mobs of the time. In the following photo montage Ben is grabbed with hooked poles and thrown on the fire as one of the gang simply say "thats another one for the fire". Exactly what Romero is trying to say with Night isnt perfectly clear, there are a lot of motifs and a lot that can be re read into the film but at its heart the horror and fear are clear and the anti government possibly nihilistic sentiments are clear.
Whether you see Night as a political statement or just as a good scare one thing is perfectly clear, it is a masterpiece!
"To me, the zombies have always just been zombies. They've always been a cigar. When I first made Night of the Living Dead, it got analysed and over analysed way out of proportion. The zombies were written about as if they represented Nixon’s Silent Majority or whatever. But I never thought about it that way. My stories are about humans and how they react, or fail to react, or react stupidly. I'm pointing the finger at us, not at the zombies. I try to respect and sympathize with the zombies as much as possible."
So maybe Zombie's aren't an encoded metaphor for anything and more a simple plot device however that doesn't stop anyone from decoding many messages from the film. It seems however that it is the humans that need to be analysed and read into arguments of race, family and gender are clear.
The film opens with a clear American flag, a simple signifier that the characters in the film, along with the zombies, represent all of America which gives significance to the first conversation. Barbra and her brother discuss why they bother driving down to the cemetery in the town they used to live to plant a wreath on the grave of their father about whom Johnny remarks coldly "I don't even remember what the guy looked like". This clear breakdown of the atomic family is representative of the time in which traditional values were disintegrating and foreshadows the later scene in which Karen Cooper kills her parents in an even more extreme signifier. Another of the traditional values to be attacked in this first scene is the church, when Johnny sees Barbra praying he simply says in a dismissing tone "Come on church was this morning". After Johnny is attacked Barbra begins to flee in a hysteric manner thus displaying her generally passive and pathetic character that could be accused of being a typical horror female. There is a lot of evidence against this however specifically in Stephen Harpers "They are us" Representations of women in George Romero's Living Dead Series" in which Harper excuses Barbra's character as either an attack on how patriarchal society makes women or a satirical comment on typical horror heroines.
As Barbra escapes one stumbling Boris Karloff esque zombie into thee refuge of an abandoned house that becomes the main set and the victim of the aforementioned siege. The lighting within the house is spectacular, the black and white visuals are lit in moody squares as if through the windows, the spooky effect is perfect and haunting. A few random shots of animal heads frighten Barbra further showing her hysteria and possibly referencing Hitchock's Psycho from 1960 furthering the possibility that Romero is mocking classic horror/ thriller females.
Barbra is saved however by the main hero of the film, Ben an African American man who stamps his authority on the situation and kills zombies left right and centre. Although Ben was never written as a black character he is one of the first back leads in film that don't have a romantic partner and his presence alludes to the ever present zombie theme of racism. Ben's later death is a harrowing experience and Romero himself has said that it isn't a reference to Martin Luther King's assassination but when he was transporting the film to the studio to be printed he heard of MLK's assassination and thought there was a creepy parallel. Ben's character takes control and boards up the house before telling Barbra and the audience his story which is amazingly delivered and evokes fear and empathy in the audience.
The reliance of our survivors on the media becomes apparent as they perch by the radio which imparts small gems of knowledge calling the zombie outbreak an "explosion of mass homicide in which victims are "partially eaten by their attackers". Even Ben is reliant on some greater force as he believes that if they survive long enough "someone is bound to come and get us" thus highlighting the public's reliance on government to save them from situations of danger. Whether Romero sees this as positive or negative is unclear as when people do come to help they do the exact opposite and kill Ben. Romero has said in commentary on his other films that he thinks its funny that if this ever happened it would only be the government and the red necks that would be able to defend themselves, an interesting if not frightening idea.
The arrival of more zombies outside the house is clear as they stumble along eating bugs and bark to delay their hunger. Clearly seen in the foreground is a naked female zombie, this goes some way towards supporting the argument that Night is a feminist film as the woman is in no way sexualised but just there wondering round like the others. With the arrival of more zombies comes the arrival of Harry, Tom and Judy from the cellar down below, after hearing the noioses and hiding they finally decided to find out what was going on, finding Ben and beginning the ever present power struggle between Ben and Harry, Black and White. Ben never falters simply saying "go back down into the cellar, you can be boss down there."
The breakdown of the modern family is contained in the cellar, within the family of the Coopers, father Harry, mother Helen and ill daughter Karen are hiding out in a hope to survive. They however are not happy as Helen states "We may not enjoy living together, but dying together isn't going to solve anything" and ironic foreshadowing again of their soon to be death. Again the television and media leads them astray or at very least leads them as the Vietnam like footage of search and destroy missions tells them that their best chance is to get to a refugee centre. Whether it is right or not Ben is willing to do it because "the television says its the right thing to do" Ben saying "television" not scientist or government official is extremely important as it shows that he doesn't so much believe the specialist as he does the media that control his actions.
Ben's plot to save them by fuelling the fire fails and the young love of Tom and Judy fails and dies with is, a pessimistic statement about relationships and sacrifice. Harry sees this as a chance to overtake Ben, he believes he has gone too far and when Ben drops his gun to deal with a Zombie it is snatched by Harry. He however doesn't have the guts to shoot Ben who wrestles the gun from him and shoots him. Its every man for himself as the Zombies break the house down, the women however band together as Barbra finally starts to be productive. Her heroism is shortlived however as Johnny arrives at the house and pulls her into the horde.
Meanwhile Ben retreats into the basement where Karen has been eating her father and stabbed her mother to death in a horrifying scene. The trowel scene is brilliant, the slanted lighting canted camera and screeching soundtrack all make for a horrifying death, all the more scary for the corrupted innocence of the young girl Karen Cooper, who destroys the atomic family completely.
Ben does survive the onslaught by killing the Coopers and hiding in the basement as per Harry's original suggestion. However as he steps into the light in the morning he is killed by a search and destroy squad who believe he is a zombie, this scene bares a stark resemblance to lynch mobs of the time. In the following photo montage Ben is grabbed with hooked poles and thrown on the fire as one of the gang simply say "thats another one for the fire". Exactly what Romero is trying to say with Night isnt perfectly clear, there are a lot of motifs and a lot that can be re read into the film but at its heart the horror and fear are clear and the anti government possibly nihilistic sentiments are clear.
Whether you see Night as a political statement or just as a good scare one thing is perfectly clear, it is a masterpiece!
Tuesday 4 December 2012
"They're US": Representations of Women in George Romero's 'Living Dead' Series by Stephen Harper
"They're US": Representations of Women in George Romero's 'Living Dead' Series is an essay by Stephen Harper which analyses the feminist views on the Living Dead series. The essay itself is well written, well informed and well evidenced, concluding in a persuading argument for Romero as a feminist film maker. Not only does this persuade readers that Romero is a feminist film maker but that he has represented women in not just binary passive/ active or positive/ negative but questions "the ability of binary categories of gender to comprehend the fluidity and diversity of images of women."
In Night of the Living Dead (1968) his representations of women are as passive, inactive characters who do little to help the cause. Whilst that would seem incredibly negative Harper flips this around in a few ways. The strongest proof for Night as a feminist text is the argument that the females passivity is the fault of the overly aggressive patriarchal males who force them down, thus making Night not a critique of weak women but a critique of patriarchal society. This is evidenced first by Johnny's playful teasing "They're coming to get you Barbra" which Harper argues is not a reference to the zombies but "playfully foreshadows the aggression of all the men at various points in the film.". The other main piece of evidence is a piece of speech from Tom who says "if all three of us were working together" things would be easier, Harper points out the important people Tom is talking about are the three male characters. This is a little weaker in my mind as it is Tom is trying to force Ben and Mr Cooper to get along, the women aren't involved in the conversation, however maybe the point is that they should be involved. The final evidence for a feminist reading of Night is the character of Mr Cooper who is an extreme stereotype of a controlling patriarchal male, however his constant fight for control is evident and it is worth noting the young female character fights back against him finally devouring his body. Harper argues it is Mr Coopers "authoritarian personality" that epitomises the male oppression within Night and excuses the female characters passive behaviour. Finally another possibility is that "Night might be read as a satirical comment on traditional representations of women in horror cinema" this is definitely a possibility when you consider the satirical content of Dawn of the Dead (1978).
Harper than moves over to an analysis of Dawn of the Dead (1978) in which the heroine is much more active but not an opposite to the passive feminine character of Barbra. Fran is a more complex character she is a professional in her field and is a strong character who is "consummately articulate and aware of the men's sexist assumptions about her". She is also pregnant and feminine and often takes on typical gender rolls such as nursing, home making and mothering. There are two specific scenes Harper analyses one being the scene in which Fran sits opposite a zombie, a pane of glass separating them and the other a scene in which she succumbs to capitalist desires making herself up with expensive lipstick and mascara. The first scene, with the 'softball zombie' shows Fran's "commendable sensitivity as she sees it as both her unborn child and identifies with is an oppressed and forgotten woman. The second scene sees Fran as a "mannequin" who "applies her lipstick" and "adopts the vacant gaze of the stereotypical consumer". Whilst it would be easy to read this scene as an anti-feminist scene showing a woman steeped in capitalism, make up and stereotype that is only what is on the very basic surface. A closer reading of the scene shows that "Romero refrains from criticising Fran for her participation in the makeup ritual and focuses instead on the social pressures that work to turn intelligent women into consuming mannequins." Harper concludes this section by fairly summing Dawn up as a film in which Romero "critically examines the many possible images of femininity available to women in the 1970's"
Day of the Dead (1984) and the remake of Night of the Living Dead (1990) written by Romero and directed by make up artist guru Tom Savini. In Day, Sarah is the most active female of the series, she flips the roles of Night as she acts as "protector for her emotionally shattered partner". Haper notes that Day offers the clearest parallel between humans and zombies through Professor Logan and Captain Rhodes; "Professor Logan's objective is to 'condition and control' these unruly creatures, just as Captain Rhodes seeks to control (both professionally and sexually) the ungovernable Sarah". The main point of Day is a continuation of the theme in Dawn that Sarah is a strong and active female that "also acts in a caring stereotypically motherly fashion towards her partner". Harper's analysis of the remake of Night is interesting however I don't personally count it as one in the series. Harper sums Night up as a representation of the limitations of feminism as well as a visual parallel of the differences between women in the 60's and in the 90's.
Harper sums the whole series up as positive towards women and as feminist texts that don't just show women as active and passive. The development of women in the films is clear and the fact that Romero has managed not to fall into the pit holes of strong sexist action heroes and over sexualisation is commendable. When I personally analyse Romero's thee most recent zombie films I will keep this article in mind and see if Romero has continued to fight for feminist values.
In Night of the Living Dead (1968) his representations of women are as passive, inactive characters who do little to help the cause. Whilst that would seem incredibly negative Harper flips this around in a few ways. The strongest proof for Night as a feminist text is the argument that the females passivity is the fault of the overly aggressive patriarchal males who force them down, thus making Night not a critique of weak women but a critique of patriarchal society. This is evidenced first by Johnny's playful teasing "They're coming to get you Barbra" which Harper argues is not a reference to the zombies but "playfully foreshadows the aggression of all the men at various points in the film.". The other main piece of evidence is a piece of speech from Tom who says "if all three of us were working together" things would be easier, Harper points out the important people Tom is talking about are the three male characters. This is a little weaker in my mind as it is Tom is trying to force Ben and Mr Cooper to get along, the women aren't involved in the conversation, however maybe the point is that they should be involved. The final evidence for a feminist reading of Night is the character of Mr Cooper who is an extreme stereotype of a controlling patriarchal male, however his constant fight for control is evident and it is worth noting the young female character fights back against him finally devouring his body. Harper argues it is Mr Coopers "authoritarian personality" that epitomises the male oppression within Night and excuses the female characters passive behaviour. Finally another possibility is that "Night might be read as a satirical comment on traditional representations of women in horror cinema" this is definitely a possibility when you consider the satirical content of Dawn of the Dead (1978).
Harper than moves over to an analysis of Dawn of the Dead (1978) in which the heroine is much more active but not an opposite to the passive feminine character of Barbra. Fran is a more complex character she is a professional in her field and is a strong character who is "consummately articulate and aware of the men's sexist assumptions about her". She is also pregnant and feminine and often takes on typical gender rolls such as nursing, home making and mothering. There are two specific scenes Harper analyses one being the scene in which Fran sits opposite a zombie, a pane of glass separating them and the other a scene in which she succumbs to capitalist desires making herself up with expensive lipstick and mascara. The first scene, with the 'softball zombie' shows Fran's "commendable sensitivity as she sees it as both her unborn child and identifies with is an oppressed and forgotten woman. The second scene sees Fran as a "mannequin" who "applies her lipstick" and "adopts the vacant gaze of the stereotypical consumer". Whilst it would be easy to read this scene as an anti-feminist scene showing a woman steeped in capitalism, make up and stereotype that is only what is on the very basic surface. A closer reading of the scene shows that "Romero refrains from criticising Fran for her participation in the makeup ritual and focuses instead on the social pressures that work to turn intelligent women into consuming mannequins." Harper concludes this section by fairly summing Dawn up as a film in which Romero "critically examines the many possible images of femininity available to women in the 1970's"
Day of the Dead (1984) and the remake of Night of the Living Dead (1990) written by Romero and directed by make up artist guru Tom Savini. In Day, Sarah is the most active female of the series, she flips the roles of Night as she acts as "protector for her emotionally shattered partner". Haper notes that Day offers the clearest parallel between humans and zombies through Professor Logan and Captain Rhodes; "Professor Logan's objective is to 'condition and control' these unruly creatures, just as Captain Rhodes seeks to control (both professionally and sexually) the ungovernable Sarah". The main point of Day is a continuation of the theme in Dawn that Sarah is a strong and active female that "also acts in a caring stereotypically motherly fashion towards her partner". Harper's analysis of the remake of Night is interesting however I don't personally count it as one in the series. Harper sums Night up as a representation of the limitations of feminism as well as a visual parallel of the differences between women in the 60's and in the 90's.
Harper sums the whole series up as positive towards women and as feminist texts that don't just show women as active and passive. The development of women in the films is clear and the fact that Romero has managed not to fall into the pit holes of strong sexist action heroes and over sexualisation is commendable. When I personally analyse Romero's thee most recent zombie films I will keep this article in mind and see if Romero has continued to fight for feminist values.
Saturday 1 December 2012
Adobe after effects CS6 tutorial 1
I have never used Adobe after effects in my life, nor have I used any other effect program, the most advanced effects I have used are on final cut and Windows movie maker, so this tutorial was a massive learning curve for me. The interface is pretty simple and easy to get used to so I felt pretty comfortable with it by the end of the lesson, the possibilities however are overwhelming, there are literally hundreds of things that you could do with that program!
In this tutorial we focused on Keying, removing the green from greenscreen shots. We did this in two ways, first with the Linear Colour key. This method was pretty complicated, there were a lot of variables to play around with and alter to get better or different effects. We also added a Spill Suppressor and a Matte Colour Choker to the Linear Colour Key footage to reduce the green reflection and smooth the edges. Personally I couldn't get any particularly good results from this method, everything seemed to be a little grey and I couldn't get rid of some of the background without taking away the white dress of the actress. This highlighted the importance of lighting the greenscreen flatly as the difficult parts were those that had been lit too brightly and were near props.
Another important learning point was that it helps a lot to know the background you will be adding to the footage, and to have different angles and distance shots of the background so that when you add them in you have a lot to work with. I noticed it is also important to make sure you get the head and feet (the top and bottom) of your characters on shot when working on the greenscreen wide, if you dont do this you ahve less freedom when positioning your characters on the background.
The second method we used to remove the green was Keylight. We didn't have time to compare methods on one piece of footage so I can't tell perfectly how they compared but personally it seemed like Keylight was far superior in its result. On the downside however there was less user input, I can see that being a problem as it means the user has less control. The scond piece of footage we used was the mirror from our very own shoot, the wish was to get a twisted reflection in the mirror and then have the girl and reflection to touch the mirror, causing it to ripple. This was a little tricky because of the speed at which she raises her arm to touch the mirror. With a more carefully directed shoot I think this would have been avoided but still I think the problem is resolvable with manipulation of time in the edit. I would prefer to do that time editing in a different program however because of the rendering time involved in After effects. Once I have edited the scene together I am going to try and add the effects again.
We used key frames and motion to effect the mirror scene and the ripples, using key frames is something I have done in final cut so this was quite familiar, it just took a while to adapt to the different layout.
I have learned loads about after effects! I am really looking forward to having more fun with it. I still however when possible prefer to use practical effects, its just a personal matter of opinion, I have always said if it can be done without a computer program then thats the way it should be done. That being said, after effects does open up a lot of affordable opportunities, my imagination is running wild!
In this tutorial we focused on Keying, removing the green from greenscreen shots. We did this in two ways, first with the Linear Colour key. This method was pretty complicated, there were a lot of variables to play around with and alter to get better or different effects. We also added a Spill Suppressor and a Matte Colour Choker to the Linear Colour Key footage to reduce the green reflection and smooth the edges. Personally I couldn't get any particularly good results from this method, everything seemed to be a little grey and I couldn't get rid of some of the background without taking away the white dress of the actress. This highlighted the importance of lighting the greenscreen flatly as the difficult parts were those that had been lit too brightly and were near props.
Another important learning point was that it helps a lot to know the background you will be adding to the footage, and to have different angles and distance shots of the background so that when you add them in you have a lot to work with. I noticed it is also important to make sure you get the head and feet (the top and bottom) of your characters on shot when working on the greenscreen wide, if you dont do this you ahve less freedom when positioning your characters on the background.
The second method we used to remove the green was Keylight. We didn't have time to compare methods on one piece of footage so I can't tell perfectly how they compared but personally it seemed like Keylight was far superior in its result. On the downside however there was less user input, I can see that being a problem as it means the user has less control. The scond piece of footage we used was the mirror from our very own shoot, the wish was to get a twisted reflection in the mirror and then have the girl and reflection to touch the mirror, causing it to ripple. This was a little tricky because of the speed at which she raises her arm to touch the mirror. With a more carefully directed shoot I think this would have been avoided but still I think the problem is resolvable with manipulation of time in the edit. I would prefer to do that time editing in a different program however because of the rendering time involved in After effects. Once I have edited the scene together I am going to try and add the effects again.
We used key frames and motion to effect the mirror scene and the ripples, using key frames is something I have done in final cut so this was quite familiar, it just took a while to adapt to the different layout.
I have learned loads about after effects! I am really looking forward to having more fun with it. I still however when possible prefer to use practical effects, its just a personal matter of opinion, I have always said if it can be done without a computer program then thats the way it should be done. That being said, after effects does open up a lot of affordable opportunities, my imagination is running wild!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)