Each brings a freshness to these characters. Even though we’ve seen the same types of characters before, these actors makes them feel interesting and unique. “The Notebook” is a gentle romantic tale in the midst of blockbuster action films and goofball comedies. It could be argued that releasing it in mid-June is counter-programming at its best, giving adults who don’t want their senses assailed by CGI special effects a real choice at the box office. But you have to wonder if “The Notebook” would have stood a better chance of finding the right audience had it been released later in the year, when moviegoers are really ready for more intense storytelling, than during the crowded summer months.
The OWI would manipulate the scripts and outcomes of many films for the benefits of the country as a whole. These books were historical contexts on films during the time of war. The books found were historical because they went over the history of World War II during this time, and they were also able to glimpse at the history of film. Both books made it obvious to their readers that the government played a major role in cinema during this time. Pressure from the war was high, and any way for the government to interlude propaganda to the public in order to boost morale was
How did the Lumières' activities influence the development of world cinema? The Lumiere brothers thought the cinema industry was going to be just a fad, so they didn‘t want to sell their machines. Instead they went on tour abroad and showed films in theatres and cafes. Their catalogue of one shot scenics expanded quickly and included views of Spain, Egypt, Italy and Japan. The Lumiere brothers were known for their topicals and scenic movies; they produced staged films that were mostly short comic scenes.
If stars have gained fame by just being famous, then anti-stars really are only famous for the fact that they entertain you for such a short amount of time. Lushing ends his essay by admitting that the question still remains whether those low resolution videos can bring forth a star of the qualities that we associate with them
Twenge says, “reality TV is very popular, and it is supposed to how ‘real life’ and real behavior without the façade of fictionalized dialogue and story lines. But because reality TV stars are so narcissistic, it’s really a showcase for narcissistic behavior” (pg 7).
In Sullivan’s Travels, the montage of the casualties of the Depression that Sullivan witnesses underscores everything that the movie had previously eluded too. Like Sullivan, the audience does not appreciate how horribly that time affected people and those few seconds articulated the sentiment like no words could. The movie itself, made during the Depression, does what Sullivan realizes he needs to do—make a movie that gets people to laugh through the hard times. As Sullivan says, “There's a lot to be said for making people laugh… It isn't much, but it's better than nothing.” While in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, there is not one line that sums up the entire movie’s premise, there is a lot more than one montage to show us. The audience sees Mr. Smith fighting for something he believes in, despite everything that suddenly hits him.
Nor does he appear to have used the sun as his light source, which means that his ―conclusion‖ is based upon a flawed methodology. Since digital photography did not exist in 1963, it is also relatively effortless to state—with a high degree of confidence—that no digital tampering of the original photos took place. 33 So at the highest level of Farid‘s study, Fetzer justifiably calls Farid to task for having ―violated a basic canon of scientific research, which is that all the available evidence that makes a difference to a conclusion must be taken into account. It is impossible to demonstrate that a photo is not fake by selecting one issue, excluding consideration of the rest of the evidence, and showing that it would have been possible under special conditions.‖34 Simply put, Farid‘s distortion of data is the limitation of his digital reconstruction to just ―the head and neck, [and] not a full figure corresponding to the image,‖ along with his failure ―to have used the sun as his light source.‖35 And the illogic that is coupled with Farid‘s distortion of data? Farid has, as they say, ―stacked the deck.‖36 Now that we have covered the first three elements in our deconstruction, i.e., source, object, and (il)logical means, there remains just one for our consideration, intentionality.
The story of the gods goes too far into being an opinion for one to be able to side with it. The end of the book was too much of a cop-out, a poor way to end the book. It had nothing to do with the book itself. To begin, the Taker and Leaver culture was beyond generalized. The who Takers and Leavers thing is too generalized.
There was only a simple law, and that was to not read books as well as think, making “the mind drink less and less.” This doesn’t seem much of a sacrifice because society was filled with far more excitement than literature could offer. Meanwhile, new technology helped people do everyday chores and made life simpler, leaving more time for fun. Like Beatty said, “Life is immediate, the job counts, and pleasure lies all about after work.” Entertainment ruled their society. The parlor walls seem like a god compared to our TVs. The seashell radios are convenience at its best.
On the one hand, what we are seeing, especially in a documentary like this which utilizes primary source material (home movies compete with interviews for screen time, and there are no re-enactments – thankfully) is an undeniably direct representation of external, physical reality. On the other hand, what lies behind that exterior – what is the shell of the image concealing? And more importantly, why this particular footage, and why shown in this particular way? If the truth is in what we see on screen, then the lies – or at least the mysteries – are what we don’t see, what’s hidden behind and littered around the frame. Those, then, are the metaphysics of Capturing the Friedmans.