Film Ideology

            Ideology originated in politics as a generalization for a set of beliefs or ideas. In film, it similarly refers to the messages or ideas that are portrayed through film as an art medium.When Ideology is explicit in film it is an idea that clearly stated by either a character or someone with an important contribution in the film's creation like a director. In film implicit ideology is the underlying thoughts or ideas that are not ever clearly stated but are simply implied or hinted upon. This gives an interactive opportunity to the audience who can choose to make a decision about what they see and whether an idea or message appears in a film or not. This is because implicit ideology, being unclear, is debatable.

            When looking at an actor in film, often times a specific actor has certain characteristics that are emphasized and targeted when being casted for a movie. An example of this being Jackie Chan. Martial Arts master, having learned kung fu in his younger years to star in some of his first movies like Drunken Master (1978), Enter the Dragon (1973) and Snake in the Eagle's Shadow (1978). These three movies, all made in Chan's early career as a famous actor included him displaying insane feats of strength, stamina and martial arts ability. In addition to the seriousness that came with Chan's conflicts and fighting in these movies, some comedy is always added. Even more surprising people in this time period is that Jackie Chan always did his own stunts in his movies and still does many of them today even at nearly 58 years old. Relating Chan's early movies to the modern day, we can look at any of the three Rush Hour movies or The Forbidden Kingdom where Jackie Chan still does his own stunts, scaling buildings, dodging knives and wielding swords, all accompanying a fine display of martial arts. I can only assume that his next roll in a movie will follow suit. I imagine that the film will take place in America with traveling back and forth to China. It's likely that some old enemy of his, maybe from his village steels a sacred artifact that has spiritually protected his family for centuries. In order to get it back he tries to team up with both the United States and Chinese police forces who ignore him. His mission to get back the artifact results in damage and chaos in  both countries, minuscule thought to the damage that may be caused by his enemy if not stopped. The world watches in aww as this now an international incident unfolds. Watching Chan through the media, hated by the governments, loved by the people, he eventually catches his enemy but cannot bring himself to execute them. In a final attempt at victory his enemy will attack him, but reacting Chan will do away with him easily and accidentally killing him, upset but thankful he will return the artifact to his village as a hero. 

            When looking at film ideologies over time it is clear that their narratives have changed to match the time period. An easy example of this is movies surrounding war. When we look at movies about war prior to the war that exists now, we found films rarely about WWI, or Vietnam, and limited movies about WWII. The popular movies that did fall in this category were often documentaries like Leni Riefenstal's  Triumph of Will. A brilliantly done film, documenting the Nuremberg Rallies and Nazi propaganda, it impressed the world in completely unexpected ways, changing the documentary film genre permanently. Almost never though was a movie like The Hurt Locker or the remade A-Team found prior to 2000 where a story was told like a fictitious book based on a real situation, exploring the unimaginable and experimenting with the emotions characteristics that can only be seen on the battlefield in war. Many older documentaries could not capture such emotions as the film industry can create today. Narratives have changed drastically over time to a point now where we have moved away from a direct focus on society like Taxi Driver and movies now look at the impossible and the fantasy worlds that exist inside the audiences' imagination through movies like Avatar, Warrior or Captain America. All have some sort of plausible premise: the discovery of a distant planet with new life that humans exploit, two distant brothers meeting in the final fight for a title, or even a super soldier created from governmental experiments that people claim still go on today. The majority of these ideas highly unlikely, their possibility does exist slightly, this allows an audience to grasp onto a plausible situation that then leads into an indulgence of their fantasies and wildest dreams. This is how the narration of movies has changed from the realistic films and long shots of the earlier 1900's.    

            I think that the financial support of a film or the ownership of a production company does greatly influence the power of an ideology represented in a film, and slightly the idea being portrayed itself. It is widely discussed that Walt Disney was anti-Semitic, this shown through productions of his,  and his company the Disney corporation. In this case the coporation greatly influenced an ideology that was portrayed, but at the same time the main person in the production of the films also represented the entire corporation. In many cases though I feel that while those supporting a film do give some ideological influence, that it mainly comes down to those directly working on the film like the writers and directors. For example a T.V show; in a  T.V show, the obscene or hilarious statements made by a character are the product of the writers. When and how these things are said is up to the director and the actor who work together for the explicit reason of presenting a specific idea or tone or message. While it's true that the person who gives them the money to do all this may say 'I want him to talk about italians and how they talk'. That is a limited influence by the supporter of the show, but the specific words scripted, the person it is said to and when it's said, decided by the director, and the tone and attitude in which the statement is made changes everything. These three aspects completely uncontrolled by whoever gave the initial idea, shape the entire scene, maybe as racist, stereotypical, or maybe as an observation when talking to an Italian man in one scene. The possible portrayal of one simple idea is unlimitedly vast in methods and is completely controlled by those directly in contact with the film. So I think that the financial supporters or corporation owners may have some limited input, but even less affect on the actual idea being portrayed in the final product. 

writing about film

      The first form of film writing is known as formal analysis. This is when one analyzes a film by taking apart the different aspects of a film, like cinematography or sound. These individual pieces are then looked at as a representation and in relation to the film as a whole, giving a well rounded view of the movie and its meanings. When writing about film history, the purpose is to look at the context or time period of the movie as well as the history of the movie itself. When looking at the context, a film may represent values, ideas, or events that are occurring or taking place in a society during this actual time period. The history of film and the individual movie itself gives insight to techniques and ideas that have grown and changed over time. When looking film from the early 1900's, one will right about film noir as its own genre. This has led to many new genres like detective movies or movies in new york that involve mobs like Road to Perdition. Some may vaguely classify it as film noir but at the same time it's different because it doesn't have the same aspects like a narration throughout the whole movie or the black and white filter.
      Ideological papers focus on the ideas and messages that are presented through the film medium. This type of writing often looks at the political messages or beliefs that a director holds and wishes to show to the public. An important area of  film writing exists in cultural studies. This writing compares and evaluates films from foreign countries and their representation of that society. Directors and writers express events and ideas that exist currently in their society through their films. When looking at films of foreign countries we can see how they view things or how our views of maybe horror or humor differ. The final type of film writing is Auteur Criticism. This type of writing looks at the messages, quality, and overall appeal of the final product of a film as a representation of often the director alone. The Auteur or 'Author' in film many often view as the director and believe that the film comes from his vision alone. While this is very untrue, the fact remains that many people right a film as a representation of the director because many of his beliefs and ideas are portrayed in the final film.
       When 'Annotating a Film Sequence' notes are taken that are unique to analyzing only film. Annotating a scene involves mapping out the scene through the evaluation of positions and shots. When annotating a scene of men in a room, notes would consist of recognizing an extreme close up or a waste shot or 2 shot of half the men in the room. Then looking at what angles are used, whether it's over a man's shoulder looking at the two men in front of him to show them as opposition. By annotating the shot in this manner it helps one to imagine the shot when evaluating notes at a later point in time. This also reveals patterns in shots that may represent a trend in the whole film and give more insight as to why certain shots are made.
     When discussing the idea of thinking outside of the frame of the film the author means that in order to truly grasp the concepts, ideas and messages that went into making and are portrayed in the film, one must look at more than what just appears on the screen. To truly understand why a certain movie portrays a race possibly in a certain way it's important to look at the time period the movie was made in. If a film was made in the early 1900's then it would be much easier for one to understand why the costume design in the movie or the escort is as is it is.  If one looks at the director and his background or film history it will reveal characteristics about the director maybe that couldn't have been known if someone had talked to him in an interview.
         When looking at films by say, Gus Van Sant, whether intentional or not, it can be said that he includes conflicts in many aspects of his films to create tensions and emotions that connect to his audience. In Good Will Hunting, Van Sant showed emotional connections and tensions between Matt Damon and almost every other character. With his bet friend, Ben Affleck there was a resentment conflict where Ben refund to watch his best friend live in his world wasting his talents which greatly upset Will but also shows his friends compassion. It can be said the professor uses Will to relive his youth as a 'genius', the therapist provokes will by tapping into his emotions in an unexpected way and even the girlfriend Schyla pushes his comfort zone with the move to California and the attempts at invading into his personal home life.
         Comparing this to another film, MILK where he has conflicts with every character as well, including his lovers, political rival, the police, and even the general public in some cases. This technique of centering the character in the film through both admiration and conflict from the surrounding characters allows for the audience to easily care and connect to his characters. This is an obvious trend, who many don't know though is that Van Sant is gay and has discussed in some interviews how this drives his directing and how it inspires him to create such conflicts that draw the audience to the character and eventually earn the respect and endearment of very many despite a difference; like being a genius or a gay politician. This outside knowledge helps to from a much more complete thought land understanding of movies and their background.