One Year of Explore Film

It’s the season of reflection. I had my English portfolio presentation today, and most of my classes are done with assessments, the only ones left being reflection. Thus, I think it’s appropriate that I reflect on my second and unfortunately last year of studying film.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first semester. It mostly comprised of what I feel are my strengths. We didn’t make any films, but watched, studied and discussed them in class. This was accompanied by really informative powerpoints prepared by Mr Oomens. Everything led up to film “commentary” we wrote about the South African movie, “Injia”. It was a really structured semester, but I had lots of fun doing what I enjoy the most: talking and writing about films.

The second semester was about making films. This was a bigger challenge for me because it was less about writing and talking and about actually getting up to do things. This also involved more collaborative work than I had ever had in my entire time in school, so the newness of it made it a challenge. Organizing ourselves when, unlike the first semester, we were given so much freedom with what to do with our time was also a challenge.

Even after all that could go wrong went wrong (including the loss of our first film to a broken USB port and the loss of the tape holding the footage of our second), we finally got our second film together. On the way, we learned how to work together, problem solve and manage our time without anyone breathing down our neck. Film cannot possibly be a frivolous arts course. Without a doubt, it is the most realistic course at ISM.

Film helping to raise school spirit

It has been common practice for class councils to make a film to begin the year and boost the spirit at ISM. The Seniors of 2008 filmed a parody of what then was the newly released film, “300”, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYgCQejFm-A This year’s Seniors of 2009 produced their own entitled “The Council”, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=794UVQB3YMA Both these films are great to watch, and it’s commendable how into it all these guys are. But aside from that, these films are perfect examples of the potential utility of film. All these videos (I’d imagine) were made possible through students of the ISM film program—students who have proven that the skills gained in film class are more immediately useful than perhaps any other subject available at ISM.

A film like this communicates in ways that no other media cannot. The 300 parody, for example, has almost 2,000 hits on YouTube (more than ISM’s entire student body). Most of high school has probably seen that video, and especially on the run-up to the Battle of the Bearcats, that counts for a lot; like a BoB cheer, it’s something for the entire grade level to share. It’s just cool. That’s why we plan to make our own video next year and put the wealth of skills we’ve gained in 2 years of film class to good use! (3 out of 5 of us currently take Explore Film, conveniently enough )

On another note: just merely capturing these BoB cheers on film has immortalized them on the Internet. The Class of 2009’s haka shouts and “Souljah Boy” rendition will echo forever. Such is the power of film!

Class of 2009 (when they were Juniors and beat the Seniors)

Class of 2009 (this year, as Seniors)
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=94297230136&subj=509538585

Art for art’s sake?

Film, like all other arts, is afflicted with the uncertainty of being torn between pursuing aesthetic or more humanistic ideals. Representing the school of thought that believes in “art for art’s sake” is Isabelle Huppert, the president of the jury for this year’s Cannes Film Festival. Having been asked to compare herself to her predecessor, Sean Penn, said:

“Last year, Sean Penn did in fact define a line. That’s not my intention; at the same time, I understand why he did it, as an American coming from where he comes from, where, perhaps, some voices have more trouble being heard than in the European cinema, or in the French cinema in particular; I understand why he made that declaration. At the same time, I’d like to say that this is the definition of the cinema in general: let’s say, a humanistic ambition, a look at the world, as well as an aesthetic project; this is nothing other than the cinema.”

The two create an interesting contrast. Sean Penn represents all that is political about Hollywood. He is an advocate for humanitarian assistance for the alleged genocide in aDarfur and was a particularly outspoken critic of the Bush administration. Meanwhile, Huppert decidedly chose to stay away from that, with reason. “This is nothing other than the cinema”, she declared. Who’s right?

In his essay, “Why I Write”, George Orwell wrote that “looking back through my work, I see that it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.” Whether a piece of writing is such, or whether a film is such, is up to you. But all these considerations aside, I much prefer films motivated by something that matters more for the simple reason that only they can hold my attention. I usually find the rest too boring.

ISM Student Films ROCK MY SOCKS

Perhaps the biggest mistake that I’ve made this year (and I’ve made many :() was opting not to go to the ISM Film Festival. Luckily, our benevolent film teacher, Mr. Oomens, was kind enough to make everything better by showing our class a selection of this year’s crop of films. He showed us some because they were great, and others because they were not so. But even those were great. It was amazing how high the quality of the films made at ISM were, with clever scripts and even cleverer lighting and cinematography!

Among the batch of senior films, “The Last Man on Earth” (I think that was its name?) was cinematically brilliant. Without even considering the film’s plot, the artistry involved in putting it together was enough to keep you occupied for the entire time. It really showed off what is, in my opinion, one of the most overlooked aspects of filmmaking at ISM: letting the camera do the talking. The angles! The lighting! It was great.

Another great one was “Jimmy Doyle” (again, I’ve probably got that title wrong…). The premise was simple (it was about a typical high school loser who failed at everything), but it was executed brilliantly. I’ve never seen a student film whose protagonist was really worth cheering for like this one. From the first scene, when the class files out of the room to leave Jimmy sitting alone, to the collage of shots of him failing at everything he pursues, the film develops his character well and, like “The Last Man on Earth”, mostly lets the camera do the talking. After exhausting all other options, Jimmy resorts to acting in the last scene. As he walks on stage, the lights dim—but this leaves us with no ambiguity; Jimmy has found his niche. It was a clever, uplifting way to end a relevant film.

But make no mistake, though I found these two to be exceptional, all other films presented were still great. Most of them could have passed as professional or at least indie productions (at least in my eyes). And so here lies the beauty of film class. Not only the production process, it is what comes after, that time in which all your work is culminated into a final product for you and others to view, forever, that is the most rewarding.

“Apocalypse Now” and “Heart of Darkness”/Film and Literature

I read Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” (1902), which explores man’s capacity to both commit atrocities and deny them in the context of Imperialism. I then went on to watch “Apocalypse Now” (1979), a film by Francis Ford Copolla which is a loose adaptation of Conrad’s book. It also explores the same themes, but within the context of the Vietnam War. In making that translating not so much Conrad’s stories, but his ideas into a different setting, Copolla had created perhaps the greatest film adaptation ever—if not the best film ever (as it is in my opinion). In doing so, he created a blueprint for every filmmaker out to make an adaptation. “Apocalypse Now” is a classic film that can stand on its own; it definitely was the right choice to stray from the film’s original inspiration. A strict retelling of Marlow’s voyage up the Congo river wouldn’t have been as good.

And on another note, because of the nature of film, “Apocalypse Now” can express things in ways that a novel like “Heart of Darkness” cannot. Take for example the famous scene where Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore recites the lines “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” He delivers this ode to war as, in the background, there are wounded American soldiers crawling on the ground, crying for morphine, and further afield, innocent Vietnamese citizens (who in a previous deliberately placed shot are shown living their peaceful day-to-day lives) are being walked onboard American helicopters at gunpoint as newly acquired prisoners of war. Irony can find no better place to express itself but in film.

Books, of course, can also express things that films cannot. These two different medias, however, can be united in their common message as these two examples show. But how to translate a book to a film or a film to a book, is something else, which most—unless they’re Francis Ford Copolla—should be weary of, lest some great works are ruined. :O

“Heart of Darkness” and “Apocalypse Now”

I read Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” (1902), which explores man’s capacity to both commit atrocities and deny them in the context of Imperialism. I then went on to watch “Apocalypse Now” (1979), a film by Francis Ford Copolla which is a loose adaptation of Conrad’s book. It also explores the same themes, but within the context of the Vietnam War. In making that translating not so much Conrad’s stories, but his ideas into a different setting, Copolla had created perhaps the greatest film adaptation ever—if not the best film ever (as it is in my opinion). In doing so, he created a blueprint for every filmmaker out to make an adaptation. “Apocalypse Now” is a classic film that can stand on its own; it definitely was the right choice to stray from the film’s original inspiration. A strict retelling of Marlow’s voyage up the Congo river wouldn’t have been as good.

And on another note, because of the nature of film, “Apocalypse Now” can express things in ways that a novel like “Heart of Darkness” cannot. Take for example the famous scene where Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore recites the lines “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” He delivers this ode to war as, in the background, there are wounded American soldiers crawling on the ground, crying for morphine, and further afield, innocent Vietnamese citizens (who in a previous deliberately placed shot are shown living their peaceful day-to-day lives) are being walked onboard American helicopters at gunpoint as newly acquired prisoners of war. Irony can find no better place to express itself but in film.

Books, of course, can also express things that films cannot. These two different medias, however, can be united in their common message as these two examples show. But how to translate a book to a film or a film to a book, is something else, which most—unless they’re Francis Ford Copolla—should be weary of, lest some great works are ruined. :O

Revolutionary Road’s “hopeless emptiness”

The eradication of poverty has always seemed very important to me. No matter one’s political beliefs, a world without poverty has always seemed to be inarguably a good thing. Watching Revolutionary Road made me start to doubt that, however. I didn’t see the movie as one about Kate Winslet’s character’s dissatisfaction with the conventional life prescribed by society behind picket fences. I didn’t sympathize with her. Instead, I saw it as a film about whiny rich people who were never happy, a film that condemned life itself to being full of “hopeless emptiness”. Apparently, even the bourgeois is lacking in happiness—a reality that dashes the hopes of any aspiring proletariat, just hoping for a better world. Unfortunately, such a world does not exist. In this way, making the poor rich wouldn’t better their conditions; their old problems would merely be replaced by new ones. This movie showed me how we are all condemned to be unhappy whatever we do, raising doubts not just on the idea of whether people should pursue to live a life of riches (but since even that isn’t worth pursuing), whether people should live at all.

Slumdog is but a footnote to the greatness of Bollywood

Wearing nothing more than a loincloth, Gandhiji was once asked, “Where are your clothes?”, to which he replied, “These are my clothes.” Gandhiji’s point was that, to be one with the people, he must live, eat, and dress like them. Sadly, Slumdog Millionaire has forsaken this tradition of the great father of the nation. It may parade in a loincloth and pose as an Indian, but in truth is nothing more than an Englishman! Beyond selling the already preexisting ideals of the great nation of Hindustan to the outside world, I do not believe that Slumdog’s success will achieve anything. Its effect will be felt only externally. Hindustani film is too rich to be influenced by such a film that will, in its great history, prove to be but a footnote. The tastes of Hindustanis are too refined for such trash; no movie with such a parochial view of modern Mumbai would even be shown in Hindustan, what more be acclaimed to this degree! But alas, I am hopeful that this will at least serve a purpose. Even if it misinforms the world about Hindustan it still raises awareness of true Bollywood film.

Another bonus is that Slumdog’s recent success has exposed the world to the beautiful music of A.R. Rahmann!

Keep the Oscars!

I haven’t seen any of this year’s Oscar movies, and I still enjoyed watching the Oscars. It was enjoyable as a show on its own. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Yes, it is an “awards show”, but the awards nor the fierce competition was never what interested me. I follow the Oscars for the show.

Given this, I do believe that the industry should still have awards ceremonies. Not for the sake determining what really is the year’s “best picture”. Most film enthusiasts realized quite early on that the such award shows have largely divorced themselves from that idea (isn’t it awfully pretentious to make such categorical claims on a subjective idea in the first place?) Instead of keeping these awards ceremonies for their original purposes, of handing out awards for the sake of handing out awards, I believe that they should remain, even if just for show. I think so for a simple reason: that it’s entertaining to watch. Perhaps even more so than the movies themselves. And in a world where the film industry is growing more decentralized every year, these award shows keep a sense of unity to the film industry. In a world where other poles of filmmaking (like Bollywood), and modes (like independent film) are growing in influence, it makes you believe that Hollywood still is what it always has been, which isn’t so bad. And again, watching Hollywood celebrate its former glory in paying tribute to classic films (or Robert DeNiro, Anthony Hopkins, Ben Kingsley, Michael Douglas and Adrian Brodey present the Best Actor award) is entertaining and forces one to appreciate these films and hopefully watch them afterwards!!!

Film and Television Institute of India (STAY AWAY! :()

Just like most other third world government services, the Film and Television Institute of India’s website was not very useful! I checked the website because I wanted to delve into Bollywood film. It can be overwhelming to navigate through libraries of films, some good, some bad, from the most prolific film industry in the world (the fact that I barely know anything about it, what more be able to discern good from bad). Instead, this website gives me information of the film institute itself, instead of the subjects that they teach. Reading it, you can learn about their faculty, alumni, admissions, courses and facilities! This is fine for such an institute, but I would also like to learn something about what they actually teach. Even their course listings don’t have that. And even if you wanted to enroll here, it would still be a bad site. The interface isn’t very attractive, there are annoying pictures flashing too often on screen, and more importantly, the information they provide for prospective students is incomplete. The language is cryptic, not descriptive. Sentences are cut short. Many pages are “under construction”. And they offer a course on “Directoin”.