Remakes are an interesting study. Why remake a film that is already popular for instance? Well, new audiences mean new money for one thing and if there is an existing audience for the old film then they may well be interested in a new version of it. Take Alfie for example:
This is the original film trailer for the version starring Michael Caine made in 1966. This was the 'Swinging Sixties'. Mini skirts were in, the Beatles were No. 1 and there was an air of freedom and sexual revolution. However, women were not having it all their own way and this film shows some of the darker side to the times, albeit told with Caine's tongue in cheek humour to camera.
This is the trailer for the remake starring Jude Law and made in 2004.
The setting has moved to New York and the music has changed, but the humour and misogynist streak that characterise Alfie are still the same and told in the same style - to camera. This could tell us that nothing much changes except for the technology involved in the filming.
Which brings me neatly to this remake - War of the Worlds - written by H.G. Wells. This is a story of alien invasion. For the 1954 version this represented Russia - the nuclear, Communist threat.
Agreed, the technology and style are dated, but the representation of ideology and the drama is not. Here is the 2005 version starring Tom Cruise, with great special effects and a much better equipped military fighting the 'new threat' - Iraq.
Lastly, for the moment, a story from a different culture which is a classic of all time - The Seven Samurai.
Made in 1954 this is the story of seven Japanese warriors - the eponymous Samurai - who become the hired protectors of a small farming community being threatened by outsiders. In 1963 this was remade in America as The Magnificent Seven, an iconic film in its own right.
In keeping with the context of its Wild West setting and the representation of culture the Samurai have been replaced by cowboys, gunslingers who share the same aims and face the same issues as their Japanese counterparts.
In all of the remakes above improved technology has changed the style and quality of the film process but not necessarily the quality of the narrative and its impact on audience. For me, Michael Caine is a much better Alfie, the film is more relevant in its London setting and Jude Law brings nothing new to the part.
War of the Worlds scared audiences in its original version but for me, the technology available for the remake enhances the narrative tremendously and the addition of Ray Ferrier's (Tom Cruise) family, through which the narrative unfolds, provides a modern twist on the story and a relevance for the film's audience.
My last choice of remake is two versions of the same story which on first sight look nothing like each other but which are evidence that a good story can travel across cultures. The Seven Samurai in black and white are The Magnificent Seven in glorious technicolour. They have the same purpose and motive, the same squabbles and camaraderie. Yet only 10 years separates these texts, unlike the other remakes but the gap seems much wider, why? Is it the representation of the warrior, the bows and arrows, the fact that the original harks back to Japanese history which the West is largely ignorant of? Whereas Yul Brynner's men are part of the Western genre, frequently on the screens at that time and therefore familiar.
Anyway, more next time. One last thing........here's another story linked to the Seven Samurai - this time from the cult TV series.......
These are the forerunners of the modern movie makers and were the pioneers of early cinema, being the first to screen movies to an audience at the Salon Indien du Grand Cafe, Paris, in 1895. Films were short, often under a minute, silent and not in colour.
Film narratives centred around everyday events, trains arriving at stations, families eating together, card players (above), Everything took place in front of the camera which did not move. No panning, tilting, tracking or zooming and this is why making a 1 minute film in a similar style is such an interesting project for a would be film-maker. No edits, only music and titles/titling, enables you to understand the experiences of both early film-makers and audiences alike and going to the 'cinema' looks to be quite an experience that someone should recreate (see below),
and this is truly beautiful and amazing for its time!
This is truly amazing. In years to come most things could well arrive via a printer, from food to body parts! Please take a look. Perhaps it's just me but this feels like science fiction.
This week sees the handing out of assignment Briefs for level 1 and level 2 students and the last week of preparation for Level 3. Please make sure that you are up to date with work as you will need the results in order to complete assignments. Please also note that deadlines must be met. All the necessary info., Powerpoints etc. should be on Moodle if you need to access any.
Work aside - for a moment - this looked interesting if you like cameras and technology. There are loads more on their You Tube channel
Some great comments about editing by famous directors etc. Please watch the whole of the movie (The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing) on You Tube if editing is your passion! Also the uploaded guide below gives you basic terminology and definitions of terms and techniques associated with the editing process.
THINKING FILM
thinking FILM
FILM LANGUAGE
EDITING
You might think that all the art of filmmaking takes place in front of and behind the camera. But a lot of art also goes into the editing process where the final film is put together. Editing a film involves selecting and combining shots into sequences and combining these sequences to create a finished film. This deliberate process helps create the filmic world and make meaning in the film. Good editing is a critical element in getting the audience to understand the film’s story, by creating or enhancing mood, emotion and character.
The director needs to create enough shots for the editor to choose from to tell the story. Not even a great editor can save a badly shot film. However, give the editor a well-shot film and they might work with the director to transform it into a masterpiece.
The editor has a number of tasks on a film:
- To select and reject footage filmed by the director
- To organise the various shots filmed by the director into a coherent whole
- To co-ordinate one shot with the following shot in order to produce the desired effect
on the audience and to keep a narrative moving
BUILDING BLOCKS
The editor starts by looking at the various individual shots available to create a particular scene.
Using the script as a guide, they then decide how best to use these shots to construct the scene. A scene is a self-contained, continuous series of shots that show a particular dramatic and/or narrative moment. Sometimes, an entire scene might just comprise a single shot if it is an appropriately long take.
The editor adds one scene to another to form a sequence, which is a self-contained group of sequential scenes grouped around a specific set of sections of the narrative. Editing all of the sequences together will finally give us a finished film.
CONTINUITY EDITING
Despite all this art and craft, the audience hardly ever notices good editing. Although we know that we are watching pieces of film joined together, we are so used to continuity editing that we accept what is happening on screen providing that it follows the rules that we have learnt through watching other films or narratives. Most films and other moving images that
we watch conform to this method of editing.
The common features of continuity editing, that we so often do not notice include:
Establishing shot
This is typically used at the beginning of a film or sequence to ensure that the audience knows where and when the action takes place. We could see the outside of a building, landscape or a city skyline. This shot may then change to the inside of a building that we can assume for example is the inside of that building that we saw in the establishing shot.
Shot reverse shot
This is commonly used during conversation, it makes sure that we the audience can see how both people in the conversation respond and deliver specific pieces of information.
180 degree rule.
This basic rule ensures that the audience can understand the scene in terms of where things are within the filmic space. For example, two characters (or other elements) in the same scene should always have the same left/right relationship to each other. If the camera passes over the imaginary axis connecting the two subjects, it is called crossing the line. The new shot, from the opposite side, is known as a reverse angle.
Rules can be broken, of course and if a director and editor break the 180° Rule by choice,
it is to create confusion and disorientation in either the characters or the audience.
CUT
When the editor is thinking about which shot to choose, they might find that the director filmed one piece of action from a number of different positions or angles. Which is the one that is right for the sequence?
In joining one shot to another, how should the editor cut?
Film editors can connect scenes in a number of ways. The most common transitions you will see include a:
straight cut
fade out
dissolve
wipe cut
jump cut
These transitions affect the pace and mood of the scene and how the sense of the film is communicated to the audience.
You can show a scene in a single shot, so why cut from one shot to another in a scene? What is the effect of this?
SPACE, TIME AND RHYTHM
When the editor works on a scene, they are thinking about three things:
The quality of the shot - what does each shot contain? How has the cinematographer filmed each shot? Is it a close-up, a long shot etc.? What is actually happening in the shot? What are the characters doing? How does this relate to the way that the shot has been filmed?
Cinematic space - effectively where the action takes place. It is quite common to begin a sequence with an ESTABLISHING SHOT which establishes the place where the action takes place, spatial relationships between actors and objects within that space and the scale of the cinematic space (i.e. does the action take place in a small room or in a wide landscape). It also asks the audience to think about what people are doing within this space and what we want to focus on.
Cinematic Time - the time a given sequence takes to play on the screen. In film, time can be compressed or extended. Although the action might take only a few seconds, through editing and building up tension, the cinematic time of your final film might be longer. The opposite might be the case. Although the action itself in real time might be for five or six minutes, in cinematic time you might be able to edit the scene in one or two minutes.
How to shrink time
Through a series of fast paced cuts we can see things that would take a long time in just a few minutes or seconds. Instead of watching a character get in a car and drive for 20 minutes we see them get in and then get out, letting us assume that the journey has taken place.
How to expand time
The editor can expand time by adding additional details. For example, someone is sitting in a chair waiting for the phone to ring. In real time this might only last half a minute. But the editor can build up tension by including shots of the person’s eyes, tapping fingers (to show impatience) etc, drawing the scene out to a minute or more. We are looking at ‘film’ time, not real time.
Rhythm - Editing sets the rhythm or pace of a scene. This could be dictated by either the music used behind a scene or the mood that the editor is trying to create and the pace that you edit. To build up tension in a scene you might cut from one shot to another very quickly. However, in a relaxed scene the editing will progress at a much slower pace, dwelling longer on each shot.
