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.
Sunday, 9 December 2012
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!
Thursday, 29 November 2012
The development of Zombies from 1968-2012
The use of the word zombies or Xombi's started a long time before cinema, and even when it crept into cinema it was not the zombies common audiences would recognise. It all began with Hatian Zombies who were slave masters controlled by their slaves with Vudoo. As interesting as these zombie films are and as enticing the comparison between the two types of zombies are there have been a large number of changes to the classic "Romero" zombies who are considered the first of modern zombies in Night of the Living Dead (1968 George A Romero).
"Romero is the Shakespeare of zombie film, and this is his Hamlet" (Peter Dendle The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia 2001) Nobody could put it better and Zombie's started with him in Night Of the Living Dead (1968). Romero was never trying to reinvent the Zombie movie or make a new monster in fact he was mimicking the creatures from Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, in that novel the creatures are warped vampires however Romero dulled down the creatures and took away their main weaknesses and was left with a new creature of his own. The word Zombie is never used in the film and Romero never called them zombies himself but that is what the press decided to name them in their widely mixed reviews of the film. Romero's zombie is frighteningly simple, its out their waiting, if it catches you it will try and kill you, you have to shoot it in the head, if you die you will turn into one of them! Finally zombies want you for one thing, food. There are many themes within Night of the Living Dead and despite what many reviewers said at the time, there is definitely a lot of subtext behind what many called B movie trash. It was one of the most graphic films of the 60's and is in my opinion an early precursor to many 70's horror films that focused on blood and the evil within us all. Contrary to horror in and before the 60's that focused on the alien enemy, the outsider, the foreign, Night focuses on the enemy within, not only does it criticise the nuclear family and racism but it is popularly seen as a critique of the Vietnam war. The ending credits specifically are referencing lynch mobs and the burning of bodies, television footage also mimics that of news footage of Vietnam. There is a lot of evidence for all of Romero's subtexts and it is evident in all of his other zombie films that his work is a critique of society that just uses zombies as a plot device to make people listen and watch.
Romero's zombie can still seen today and has gone through many variations including those that call out brains, those that come from the grave and there have been dozens of proposed reasons for their existence, radiation, poison, Vudoo, magic, curses, the devil, disease ect. The most recent and most important change came to screen in 2002 in the form of the Rage infected masses of 28 Days Later (Danny Boyle 2002). The significance of 28 Days Later is partly to do with its time as it is seen as one of the first of the new wave of zombie media, 2002 was a ripe year, with war in high swing and made in the always government protesting England, the inward looking genre was bound to do well again. Danny Boyle known for Trainspotting and Sunshine is a "gritty" director who aims for realism and bleak imaginations of pretty basic stories. 28 Days Later fits into this bleak category for sure but more importantly the "rage" virus somehow made audiences see the infected as a new more believable zombie, whether this is because of how little is explained about the virus or because of a lack of knowledge about science is beyond me but it worked. The other big change is the running, this was introduced in earlier films but never really took off and was never as scary as it is in 28 Days Later these running zombies are literally infected with a virus that... makes them angry, rather than eating you they want to kill and beat you. Still pretty horrifying and there is still a lot about them that don't make sense but this most recent movie iteration of the zombie has been copied many times now although most films just take the running bit, the question is why?
Romero's zombie can still seen today and has gone through many variations including those that call out brains, those that come from the grave and there have been dozens of proposed reasons for their existence, radiation, poison, Vudoo, magic, curses, the devil, disease ect. The most recent and most important change came to screen in 2002 in the form of the Rage infected masses of 28 Days Later (Danny Boyle 2002). The significance of 28 Days Later is partly to do with its time as it is seen as one of the first of the new wave of zombie media, 2002 was a ripe year, with war in high swing and made in the always government protesting England, the inward looking genre was bound to do well again. Danny Boyle known for Trainspotting and Sunshine is a "gritty" director who aims for realism and bleak imaginations of pretty basic stories. 28 Days Later fits into this bleak category for sure but more importantly the "rage" virus somehow made audiences see the infected as a new more believable zombie, whether this is because of how little is explained about the virus or because of a lack of knowledge about science is beyond me but it worked. The other big change is the running, this was introduced in earlier films but never really took off and was never as scary as it is in 28 Days Later these running zombies are literally infected with a virus that... makes them angry, rather than eating you they want to kill and beat you. Still pretty horrifying and there is still a lot about them that don't make sense but this most recent movie iteration of the zombie has been copied many times now although most films just take the running bit, the question is why?
Personally I think the move to running zombies has to do with the audience, its not the 60's anymore and if you show a modern audience the zombies of NOTLD they don't really care, they are desensitised to that kind of horror, there needed to be a new level. Of course Romero's zombies can still be scary, Romero himself proved that in Diary of the Dead, Land of the Dead, and Survival of the Dead but it takes a master to add that kind of fear, thrill and tension. The slow horror film is a dying breed instead (and really since the late 70's) we have slashers and action, thriller horror hybrids. There is no time for intelligent critique and slow drama, it has to be fast, have explosions and be on a massive scale. The remake of Dawn of the Dead (Zack Snyder 2004) is one good example of this kind of zombie film, it is a clear Hollywood blockbuster of a film, it mixes all the kinds of high octane action you expect from Hollywood but loses the B movie charm and character depth of Romero's films. It is still a brilliant film, and still a successful film but it is a different monster, as is the zombie itself.
It is however the opinion of Romero himself that the reason for the change was video games in an interview with Vanity Fair he said
"it’s just the influence of video games. I don’t think there’s anything deeper to it than that. Filmmakers saw what was happening in video games and started thinking, “Well, we’ve got to keep pace and make our zombies fast too.” I still don’t agree with it. If zombies are dead, how can they move fast? My guys don’t run. They never have and they never will. They’re just lumbering oafs that are easy to dispose of unless you make a mistake. Those are the rules, and I’ll stick with what I’ve got."
An interesting and probably correct theory however it disregards the reason that computer games themselves moved from slow moving to quick zombies. The main game series that illustrates this change is Resident Evil, in the first 3 games had slow moving Romero style zombies, admittedly there were other fast creature out to get you like Lickers and Hunters but the zombies stayed the same until Resident Evil 4 which came out in 2005, years after quick zombies swarmed the silver screen. I think this change is for exactly the same reason as it is in cinema, audiences getting wanting action horror rather than survival horror. That being said there are a lot of fast paced zombie games and arcade games that did appear before 2002, House of the Dead for example.
Zombies have changed very little since 2002 and continue to be subtly morphed by different franchises. My personal belief is that whilst the sheer number of zombies in a film is often a scary thing, they should be considered dangerous even by themselves and should be scary by themselves. The mass killing of zombies isn't something I am a fan of, to me sing zombies as cannon fodder is quite poor film making, it is more interesting to spend time on character development than zombie head popping effects! For this reason I dislike the most recent Resident Evil film (2012 Paul Anderson), which deals with multiple random monsters, zombies, hundreds of head shots, poor acting, poorly written characters and illustrates the reason games aren't often literally translated into films.
I await the return of the true zombie and of George A Romero, it all started with him and in my opinion his are still the best, no matter how far the genre comes, no matter how much zombies change Romero will always be the Godfather of the Zombie!
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2010/05/george-romero
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)