this isn't update much...check out my main blog: dulacian.blogspot.com

Not much about movies....

But much, at least.

I watched "Rendition" last night.  It's not the best movie I've ever seen.  Well, I take that back.  It's a good movie.  It's entertaining and suspenseful, and I was never really bored.  But what was it that I hadn't seen before?  A plot about things I didn't know anything about.  In fact, other than that, it was nothing more than a Bourne movie.  The plot wasn't even that far from a Bourne movie to begin with.  I don't even mind the Bourne movies. 

But there is no such thing as a Bourne film.  At least not anymore.

"Rendition" doesn't exist for me.  Nor will I ever buy it.  Were it my money going into the rental machine last night, there is no way I would have rented it.   But it was great for the situation, because it had the elements people wanted; drama, suspense, intriguing plot, some attachment to the characters, and Jake Gyllenhal.  I like Jake Gyllenhal, even if I don't know how to spell his name.

I could rant for a long time about how "Rendition" failed visually.  But that would be useless, because it wasn't trying to be visual, it wasn't trying to be film at all.  Truthfully, it was trying to make money, and at least last night, it kind of succeeded, in a way, if one dollar for 10 views counts.  It was the object of our movie night.  There's a reason you don't call them film nights, and more of a reason why you don't hear about foreign movies as much as foreign film, and it has little to nothing to do with alliteration, although I do love alliteration.

-Zack

To the modern viewer, F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu, a silent adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula, needs not be viewed.  It is in black and white, the acting is more like pantomime, there is no spoken dialog, and the camera moves as much as a sea urchin.  The modern viewer that would say this, however, is incorrect.  It is true that by modern standards, there is little to be scene in this film.  It is slow moving and without the compelling performances found in today's best movies.  But it is a piece of cinematic history that does, each and every time it is viewed for the first time, lend itself greatly to the modern film, and particularly the modern horror or monster film.Visually, the film is impressive for its time.  The close ups on text throughout go a long way to establish montage between the characters gaze and what they are looking at.  This technique is commonplace in today's films (with some films, like "The Mission" toying with the convention, as it so very standard).  In 1922 however, the idea of montage was in its early stages, and capturing the gaze of a character, even if only to show the text they are reading, was a big deal.By today's standards, a Vampire movie without red ought to be impossible; what is a vampire without blood. 

A vampire without blood, or at least red blood, is Nosferatu.  Being filmed in black and white lends an eeriness to the entire film that modern films often cannot capture.  Without special effects and with ingenious techniques, such as the negative image shots and purely diagetic lighting, Nosferatu, while remaining a film about a vampire, is a film about darkness, and by being such, is a film about light.  The original movie poster, perhaps, says it all:



Without any real mention of a vampire, the poster suggests that the film is a representation of darkness and evil.  To this end, Nosferatu, with the surrealistic vampire and dark corridors is making a statement about the nature of humanity through the lens of Stoker's novel. What, however, is darkness, without light?  All of the "good" meaning, non-vampiric characters, are represented in stark white, with high key, flushed out scenes abounding.  The contrast created allows for the assumption that people are full of both good and evil.  This may seem oxymoronic, if the good are clearly good and the evil are clearly evil.  However, Renfield represents the possibility of any person going either direction.  Falling in between the pure evil of Nosferatu and the good of the Harkers and other characters.  Because Renfield, prior to the events of the film, was in the same position as Johnathan, he represents what Johnathan could be.  With no real suggestion of an innate flaw within Renfield, the only plausible conclusion is that any of the characters, in their extremeties, could become any of the other characters.While the technology may be less than is available today, the still camera allows for framing and lighting effects that accentuate the dark overtones throughout.  Because of the inherent frame present in a still shot, the shadows are allowed to move through the frame, giving a feeling of creeping horror throughout the scenes.Setting up a dichotomy between light and dark in the representation and actions of the characters, as well as with the lighting and still camera, Nosferatu is a tour de force in silent film making.  There is a level of beauty in silent films, in how they capture the art as frames, as a visual art portrayed within the screen.   While today's technology allows for visual spectacle as far as the mind can invent, silent film technology follows a set of rules.  To this end, the art of silent film is like a brilliant gymnastic performance.  The rules must be followed, and, as a result, beauty becomes, to a certain level, objectified.  Were silent films judged like olympic gymnastics, Nosferatu would be tantamount to Alfred Flatow.
-Zachary R. Belcher