Thoughts from WITHIN…

 SPACE

When we talk of space, it has something to do with something in the galaxy, a space in our room, a space in our heart, or a space in our trunk, and many more. But space in cinema or film is another thing.

As what Alexander Sesonske said, “cinema sapce is wholly and only visual: a space given to a single sense, vision.” Unlike in what we experience everyday where the spaces we see are very much familiar to us–there is a sense in us that we can actually touch it I mean we are aware of the spaces we see–, “cinema space” is merely derived from our vision. <what we see is what we get…if i’m right>.

 In BABEL the audience get to travel from one place to another without standing or moving from their seats. The action space does not require the one who watches to walk to reach a certain place. But action spaces in reality is where a person must move to reach a certain place–opposite to the one in cinema.

It is said that a film has a two dimensional space but when MOTION comes in it becomes three dimensional.  

MOTION

Motion as we all know has something to do with action or moving.

In film, if I’m right, motion is influenced by the movement of the camera as it zooms in or out, pans to the left or right, or just a mere movement from left to right, downward or upward. A simple movement of the camera may tell a certain story about a certain film. I mean, a camera movement can illicit a certain emotion to the viewer.

In BABEL, there was an istance there that the camera was very shaky. By that movement of the camera you can tell that there is something strange or a certain predicament may arise. You can tell that there’s a certain “tension” in the film as suggested by the camera movement.

TIME

Time as well pertains to may things like the time in your watch, the time in music, or the time in film, and many more.

According to Sosanske, time in film is of two kind, the “viewing time” and “dramatic time”. As defined by him, “viewing time is the time of our ordinary experience, measurable on a watch, constant in rate and direction, though with variations.” He defined “dramatic time” on one hand as “like action space in cinema, is discontinuous, its order created by the maker of the film.”

Well BABEL as I can see is of “dramatic time” since it is created. It is a film, thus, there was a created script and was freely edited. The film maker was able to combine distinct temporal periods in the film. There was the incident in Morocco, then in Mexico, and then in Japan.

As what was stated by Sesonske, “the normal mode of time in cinema is a discontinuous, condensed time experiences as an uninterrupted flow.” What we see in films happen as well in reality. The only thing that differs is that in film these experiences are condensed into certain time frame.However, it is not disturbed by the thought of applying certain temporal transitions. 

AUDIENCE

As what Stanley Cavell stated, “the audience in a theater can be defined as those to whom the actors are present while they are not present to the actors. But movies allow the audience to be mechanically absent. The fact that I am Invisible and inaudible to the actors, and fixed in position…i am present at something happening, which I must confirm, but at something that has happened which I absorb.

In a theater we, as audience, know that there are actors on stage performing their different roles. We can see how they act and talk. However, we are not present to the actors. They definitely have to act like no one’s watching to make a theater play more like reality. But I know that theater plays are not reality themselves, they are just a copy of something that really happens. The actors have to act normal and consider what they are doing as part of their everyday living. But I know that they are aware that an audience is present watching them. That’s why they need to entertain them. THEY ONLY NEED TO PRETEND LIKE NO ONE’S SITTING INFRONT OR IN THE BALCONY SO THAT THEY CAN ACT PROPERLY. THEY SET IN THEIR MINDS THAT AN AUDIENCE IS ABSENT.

Now in movies, the audience are absent.

While watching BABEL, I found myself infront of a thing ran by electricity. I am not infront of a theater play where I can see a live performance. I am infront of a taped performance by an actor. I can see him act but he can’t see me. Brad Pit was acting out his role oblivious of the presence of an audience. there are no audience for him, though I am watching him act. Again everything that took place inside the television is not reality itself but rather an imitation of a certain incident that takes place in the real world.

ACTOR

Actor as I can understand is the person playing a certain role that is given to him/her. I don’t know if I am right but I think the difference of a theater actor and the on screen actor is that they are not different at all. I know that this is in contrast of Cavell’s idea but this is mine and his is different. 

I believe that they have to accept their roles as they are. I mean they have to consider the roles like their own. It’s as if they are the roles they are playing. They have to learn how to live with it and by it. They have to approach the role directly as possible to connect with it so it will “come to life”. The difference I think is the venue where they are performed. The actor in a theater plays his/her role in a stage where it is live. There is a crowd witnessing his/her portrayal. The crowd can see everything that is happening on stage. On the other hand, an on screen actor portrays his/her role not on a stage but on a screen. In contrast with the theater, it is not live, rather it is taped.

As we can see in the film BABEL, the lead roles are played by Brad Pitt and Kate Blanchette. They portrayed the roles of a couple that is on an excurtion trip and unfortunately, kate was shot that nearly caused her death. Another role was played by Gael Garcia Bernal together with a woman<coz I don’t know her name> where they were alleged of kidnapping the two children of which I assume were the children of Brad and Kate. And a role played by a japanese mute-deaf girl.

All of them played their roles well. They appeared to be effective to me. And inorder for them to do this, they have to take the roles directly and consider them as their own. They have to practice thoroughly to make their roles near to reality.

AND WITHIN THOSE ROLES COME THE BIRTH OF A “STAR” THAT SOMEHOW BECOMES A HOUSEHOLD NAME…

the best film in the olden times…

the most studied movie by the film associated people…

the story started at the death of the main character named CHARLES FOSTER KANE. at his last breath, he uttered a word ,”ROSEBUD”, where a newspaper writer got attracted to it. he find ways on how to understand who or what does “ROSEBUD” really mean. he went to MR. KANE’S friends but neither of them gave hime a concrete, precise and concise explanation of what that word really mean. no one really knew what that word means.

MR. KANE sought his position in the publishing world and in public office as well. he succeed but in the end he failed. he had then her lovely wife named EMILY but left her for another one named SUSAN ALEXANDER. his misfortunes started when he met MS. ALEXANDER who was a frustrated singer. in the course of time he slowly lost his business and eventually he died at his huge palace called XANADU.

the movie was very, very boring indeed. it had no colors and the actors were unknown to me. i suppose they are now buried six feet below the ground or maybe some of them. the story is quite unclear to me because i didn’t had the chance to really get myself hooked up. at first maybe but as the movie progresses it appeared to be boring.

HOWEVER…

…what amazed me was the camera movements. it can really be compared to the present movies made by popular directors. the camera movements were very simple yet very ingenious. the simple zooming in becomes very meaningful. the panning to the left and right were so professionally done.

in the present movies you rarely can find those kinds of camera movements same as that to the CITIZEN KANE. these movements are replaced by a simple steady shot and then by a cut to another scene. but as time passes by things change and this is one of them.

the camera movements are filled with implicit and explicit meanings that lead to the actors’ next  “stage”…<I mean kahahantungan>. you can unravel the next event in the life of KANE by the mere movements of the camera and the lightings that made the film very well thought of.

<as for the title…uhmmm…i don’t know if i am right…kane met susan when the latter bought medicine for her aching tooth…that pulled the trigger to mr. kane’s misfortune…>

sources of picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Citiza_kane.jpg

http://cinema16.mty.itesm.mx/historia_del_cine/film_frames/kane.gif

Matthew Barney’s “The Order” which is a part of “The Cremaster” is quite interesting. I thought it was something that’s easy to undertstand but I was totally wrong. I really had a hard time understanding the sequence but actually there was no sequence. I was also having a hard time in understanding it’s logic but actually there was none of it, I suppose. I was contemplating on what was the relationship of each “art performances” to each other and I had a headache. My head was hurting but I never stopped in analyzing. Eventually, I arrived at a single conclusion: the documentary, movie or whatever you call it can cause severe hurting of the head so you better not analyze things and leave them as they are.

On the contrary, “The Order” is interesting in the sense that you thought the title is evident in the course of your watching. I honestly never saw a certain order or maybe there was and I was just preceded by my headache…whatever…

It was very amusing to see a man wearing something weird with something disgusting on his mouth climbing a certain museum where different scenes were happening. <Now, does that museum don’t have stairs or something?> How stupid! That was part of the show!

The show appeared to me as something very weird but very ingenious on the other hand though. The person behind has a very unique sense of thinking and has a wide knowledge of things. He’s like a genius…very ingenious…superb!

PICTURES TAKEN FROM:

http://www.popnutten.de/wp-content/the-cremaster-cycle.jpg

http://www.artfacts.net/exhibpics/12524.jpg

MONOLOGUE…something boring I thought. Maybe some but the one by Richard Kiamco was quite diverse. A man in tight fit shirt and shiny pants, Mr. Kiamco was really very interesting. His monologue was very entertaining and funny that you will be hooked-up and anticipate the following parts. What made it not boring I think was the way how he moved. He was like moving from here to there, and front to back. The audience somehow will be able to move their gaze so as not to make their eyesight concentrate at a single corner of the place which I believe would make it boring. He was able to utilize all the corners of the venue, with his actions of I think an exaggeration but it was fit to his monologue though.

His monologue is about a queer overachieving Filipino comes out at age 14, facing hate crimes at school, prayer vigils from Mom and the threat of electroshock therapy from Dad. Wrestling with his family’s expectations of medical school and his own dreams of fashion design, he escapes the suburban cornfields of Illinois to the streets of New York City. Will he find love, enlightenment and the perfect shade of beige? Through sharp humor, poignant truth, lush sound design and crisp choreography, this autobiopic romp shreds cultural legacy into a hilariously insightful adventure.

The adventure of his life started when he confessed to his parents that he was a homosexual. From then on he started to discover things about himself despite the people’s castigation of his being “different”. He wanted to pursue his dreams away from his parents despite the latter’s opposition. He somehow wanted to prove that he can survive without the help of his mother and father. But then he still could not resist the call to be with them and sought for their care…

It was a very entertaining show of wit and ridicule. It was a performance that utilizes the gift of gab. It was used as the agency to convey the ideas of the performer. It was ideed a very gay performance…

source of picture:

http://richkiamco.com/mywork/performances.html

Tragedy according to the great ARISTOTLE is basically composed of PLOT, CHARACTER, DICTION, THOUGHT, SPECTACLE, and SONG…

If we are talking about DICTION it has something to do with how the words in a play are arranged to express a certain meaning…it is the one responsible on how the words are uttered or delivered…correct me if I’m wrong but it’s how the definition created an understanding in me…

If DICTION is the use of words, THOUGHT is the element where emotions are conveyed to the spectators with the use of language…

SPECTACLE is the event of a certain person’s life that’s being imitated…according to ARISTOTLE, it is very effective to imitate the life of a person by starting not on his or her lowest times to his or her triumph but the other way around…it is better to see his or her success and will be pulled down by certain predicaments and eventually fall down…it will create not somuch mixed emotion if it starts from his or her PROBLEMS to SUCCESS but a mere shock…

SONG on one hand, as what its name suggests, has to do with the arrangement of words to create a certain rhythm and harmony…

With regard to the play Antigong Agong the language used is basically the one that everybody could understand. The words are simple yet it was effective in addressing what the play was really about. But like what we’ve discussed in class, some of the character’s deliverance of lines is somehow out of the character they were portraying. One is of Sam. I don’t know but I felt uncomfortable with how he delivered his lines. He appeared to me as a person who is so excited that anytime would go mad. As for me he was exaggerated with his utterance. However, it never became a hindrance to his portrayal. Now this is just my own comment please don’t get me wrong.

The thought on one hand of the play is quite unrecognizable as for me. Because basically I wasn’t able to induce the central emotion they would want their audience to feel. They conveyed a number of different emotions. It was more of a funny play for me. But then, the play still made the audience entertained and gave the production a standing ovation.

Now spectacle as what Aristotle suggested, becomes effective if it starts from the success of a person until to his downfall. In the play, it was clear that it started from the arousal of a problem and ended with a triumph. It started with Sam’s problem as to how to meet the amount of the dowry Amrayda’s family has been asking him in exchange of the girl’s hand. His prayers were answered because of a journey that aimed on finding the Antigong Agong which was the lost treasure of their race. In the end they, together with his friends were able to find the treasure and brought it home. Eventually Sam was rewarded.

This is my favorite part, the song. The songs in their play were, if I may say, very good. They were well written and well accompanied by musical instruments. It made the play very, very pleasing because their songs are in fact very pleasing to the senses. It even gave me goosebumps. The hairs in my body reacted as I heard their songs sang by beautiful voices.

But then again the play was very nicely done!

SOURCE OF PICTURE:

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1799572/2/istockphoto_1799572_comedy_tragedy_greek_masks.jpg

http://nutria.msn.no/gallery/emoticons/wink-.jpg

I’ve never expected to watch such extravagant production. I saw people trying to put up a bamboo thingy at the atrium. I never realized that that was actually a part of the play called ANTIGONG AGONG. Spectators, including myself sat on the prepared mats. I think that was a good idea. Letting your audience sit on something comfortable so everybody could see every action made by each character.

The play was rich if costume and music is concerned. Their costumes were colorful and shiny that looked so expensive <hehehe>. The music was very creative and pleasing to the ears. The musicians were great and the singers were somehow not so “trying hard”. However it must have been great to watch it with some lighting effects to somehow enhance the mood of the play.

The play wasn’t boring…not BORING. Unlike other plays I’ve watched somewhere down the road <hehehe>. I think… and I do believe that my 50 pesos was not wasted…as in. In fact their tickets deserve to be paid…uhmmm…more or less a 100 pesos.

Now let’s take the idea of the great thinker Aristotle into consideration.

The production Antigong Agong for me belongs to the realm of the comedy. As what Aristotle said, Tragedy is the imitation of noble people’s lives and is imitated seriously. Comedy on one hand is also an imitation of people’s lives but those of the lower class and is imitated in a, let’s say, not so serious way. He elaborated on the elements which a theatrical play must possess. The first of it is the plot which is the selected parts of a certain person’s life woven together to convey meaning. It is either complex or simple.

Second is the character which also has its own elements for it to be considered effective. It has to be good, appropriate, closely linked to what is real, and is consistent all throughout the play.

The plot of the Antigong Agong resides on the fact that Sam has been having a hard time in fulfilling his duties as a Tausug Muslim that will be marrying soon. The dowry asked by Amrayda’s family is quite hard for him to produce. But then a quest for the Antigong Agong has been carried on in the request of the girl’s grandmother. This is the answer to Sam’s prayer because if they will find the said treasure he will be rewarded. They were accompanied by other two friends. They encountered certain incidents in their journey that made them realize how important the agong was in their own race. In the end they were able to triumph over their hardships in finding the agong and eventually brought home the only witness to the massacre that took place years ago in a mountain called Bundok Dahu.

As for the characters, I don’t have any comments on them because they were all effective. I was able to understand all what they were doing. The only thing that somehow disturbs me is the multi-character played by Ms. Maree Cantaoi. It is not of negative reaction but more of complimenting her as being so talented. But then again they would have trained someone to portray her other roles because for me it made them looked like they don’t have enough people to act.

With regard to the total package of the play, it was basically good. I would have to put a two thumbs up on their music. It made the whole play more rich and pleasing.

Now for the continuation of the discussion on the different elements please care of to next post…thanks!

But definitely they deserve a big round of applause!!!

APPLAUSE!!!

SOURCES OF PICTURE:

http://www.creativepro.com/img/story/042204_fg1.jpg

http://www.globalschoolnet.org/about/images/applause.gif

everything on earth seemed to have sprung from, to use Plato’s words, “the maker of all the works of all other workmen”. Though constructed for example by a carpenter or simply cooked by a chef, the idea still came from “God’s mind”.

he film Tuhog is quite a very good example. The life of Floring, the one played by Ina Raymundo, is basically an imitation of the ideal one. It is a product of an ideal mold. To use a metaphor, it’s like a cake baked to perfection. However, some of the cake’s parts stick to the mold when removed. It’s not that perfect anymore. The essence of being perfect and ideal is still present though, but not entirely. Floring’s life in the movie, the one portrayed by Klaudia Koronel, is still an imitation but of the third order. It tends to be an exaggerated one. The ideal slowly loses its essence. It is basically engulfed by so much exaggeration that somehow led to a misinterpretation of the true story.

n line with this, Aristotle differentiates a Tragedy from Comedy. The two are similar on the objects of imitation but they differ in the manner of imitation. Tragedy is the imitation of noble people’s actions and is imitated in a serious manner. Conversely, Comedy illustrates the worst aspect of people belonging to the lower class. If I were to consider Tuhog as to what, if I may say, genre it may be categorized, I think it belongs to the latter. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think Comedy in the time of Aristotle is not necessarily funny. Its definition as being such has evolved and was regarded in the present as really ridiculous. It is the imitation of the actions of people in the lower class in their worst aspects but not that bad. Lower class people are basically the irony of life because they still exist despite the presence of the noble ones. Tuhog for me illustrated the worst aspect of people–how bad they can get just to fulfill their craving.

SOURCES OF PICTURES:

http://newsvm.com/archive/2003/12/05/brad_pit1.jpg

http://www.celebopedia.com/berry/images/halle_berry.jpg

http://www.reelclothes.com/AnniePost.jpg

http://www.vermontcrafts.com/membergraphics/HFishman5.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid105/p7de9fe330c291ab5341ef4231d0e7a20/f97c9271.jpg

http://www.supershowevents.com/past/2005/super/tailor-1.gif

http://www.bellalopez.com/images/magazines/50mstbeautiful2003.jpg

http://www.cbcpworld.com/cinema/archives/2001/assets/tuhog.gif

http://beautiful-island.50webs.com/

http://www.lternet.edu/news/images/spring05/reflections1.

http://www.cinemavvenire.it/magazine/pic/627a1.jpg