Getting work done at The Office

My entire blog has been dedicated to discussing both short and long films. However, I would like to take this entry to discuss the cinematography of a TV show. In my eyes, a TV series is nothing but an extended film broken up into countless parts. Or numerous short films strung together to tell one story. In short, a TV show is more or less a movie with much more flexability than a film alone.

The Office, aired on NBC, is by far one of the greatest half-hour comedy series ever made (with the exception of Friends of course...nothing can beat that). The premise of this show is a group of people who are all co-workers at a Paper distributing company called Dunder Mifflin. Starring Steve Carell as the ignorant, hillariously stupid and pathetic manager, the show is filmed as if it were a reality show. Of course the whole thing is scripted, however in the show each character is aware the camera is in the room, they can each have confessions on the events, and unlike shows where it is not reality based they can look directly at the camera and talk. Because this show is meant to be understood that it is a psuedo-reality show, the cinematography elements have a little different roll than for example a drama or thriller. The camera can and should follow certain characters for extended periods of time. In addition, the camera can cut multiple times but it is understood everything is happening simultaneously because it is a day at 'the office'.

Another aspect of a tv series that is very similar to that of a movie is the casting. The cast will make or break a show, as it will a film. In my opinion, this is the second best cast tv series ever, in the history of the entire world (with the exception of Friends which will always rank first). These characters are supposed to be regular, normal (abnormal), run-of-the-mill, common office workers. None of the characters should be a stunning Hollywood face because that renders the show unbelievable. Between Dwight Schrute played by Rainn Wilson, Pam Beesly played by Jenna Fischer, Jim Halpert played by Jon Krasinski, and Toby Flenderson played by Paul Leiberstein to name a FEW of the unbelievably structured cast, the show leaves the viewer in fits of laughter believing that these are the events that truly happen daily at any given office.

Although Steve Carell may be a big name, he is perfect for the role of Michael Scott, ignorant boss of a paper company. He is stupid, inappropriate, hillarious, and makes the audience feel uncomfortable that people have to work in an office with him, all of which Steve Carell executes perfectly. In fact, I can think of no better actor who could improve the performance of Carell's.

The show is meant to be funny. However, there is no live audience that laughs on cue. In this way, whenever we the viewers laugh it is because we truly think the show is funny. This is called dead-pan comedy. We laugh at the awkwardness, we laugh at the ignorance, and we laugh at the fact that this is supposed to be a professional work-place when there is no work getting done. This dead-pan brand of comedy is used frequently in big films, however I think this show utilizes the advantages more than any other movie I've seen. This is only enhanced by the fact that the actor's know there is a camera, however they also 'think' they are at work alone.

One of the main differences between a tv series and a movie, is that a tv series has time to establish character relationships and allow the audience much more information about the characters before we fall in love with one. Unlike a movie, as the viewer we know we have maybe two hours to find, understand, and love the hero that is being portrayed. In my opinion, the best ongoing struggle throughout the entire series is Jim v Dwight. Dwight Schrute is my favorite character in the entire show. He is absolutely hysterical. In fact, he may be one of the best actor's I have seen in a long time. The entire series plays Dwight and Jim as rivals. The first episode shows Dwight finding his stapler in a molded Jello form. "Ugh, Jim's putting my stuff in jello again." And thus begins the entertaining conflict between the co-workers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLeI-V9h6EY

That is but a brief glimpse of the thousands of hillarious moments between Dwight and Jim. This show is amazing. Although movies have a completley different structure obviously, there are many elements shared by both types of filmed entertainment.

Harry Potter 5 (Yes, I am serious)

Being home from school sick has given me the gift of time. Time to watch two movies in one day. The first, Little Miss Sunshine which is the post below this. The second, another of my all time favorites, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Laugh all you want, I absolutely love the entire Harry Potter Series. The books are fantastic. Although the movies could never surpass the books, they are pretty decent as well.

I have to admit that I have viewed all the Harry Potter movies numerous times. None of them, to my displeasure. I honestly can never be bored by Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe. However, instead of discussing the plot and the movie and the special effects, all of which I can rave about for hours on end, I think i will discuss the acting.

Emma Watson:

From Harry Potter 1 to this, we have seen her grow into a beautiful girl. The first movie was nice because they actually made her look like the description in the book. (Extremley bushy hair, studious, etc...) By this point I think David Yates (the director) really just wanted to depict her as the pretty girl she most certainly is. Of the entire Harry Potter movie cast, I believe she is the best actor of them all. She plays her part well, always reacts, and truly fits the role of Hermione Granger. They may not dress her to play the role, but her mind is certainly in it. If she is supposed to be scared, you can read fear on her face. If she is supposed to be happy, her entire body language shows it. However, she started out this way. In the first film, my review also would have said she was the best actor. More or less she hasn't exponentially improved, but rather stabilized and remained a great actress.

Daniel Radcliffe:

Oh, there is so much to say about him. FIrstly, he isn't such a great actor. However, he is astronomically better than when he first appeared in the Harry Potter series. I will never forget my impressions after viewing the first film; he was HORRENDOUS. With the same exact facial expressions regardless of what he was supposed to be feeling, I wondered if he was actually sleep-acting. (In that case he was doing a fine job). As the movies progressed, so did his skills. Now, upon viewing the last released harry Potter film (two more to go) he has exhibited his best performance yet. I love watching actor's grow into better ones. He is a prime example. Granted, acting in a movie where the majority of all scenes are later filled in with special effects to make it 'Harry Potter', it must be hard to act with little or no props. For example, while flying on a broom stick he obviously isn't flying, and therefore any acting there is good acting to me. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix contained Daniel Radcliffe's first on-screen kiss as Harry Potter which was a major deal for all HP fans. It was also a disappointment to all HP fans to see how awkward he was. Daniel Radcliffe has certainly grown into the role of Harry Potter which he will forever be known as. That is probabl why he does the play Equis, to help change his image as an actor. However, to me, he will always be my favorite fictional character in literature.

Rupert Grint:

As far as the Harry Potter cast goes, he is the BEST. Rupert Grint, playing the part of Ronald Weasley, is the number one actor in this entire series. As an audience, we could not possibly ask for a better job than what he is giving us. Akward and lanky, always a side-kick never a front man, helpful friend, sad to never have the spotlight, and all around comic relief like his brothers, Ron Weasley surpassed all my expectations for the role. Starting from the first film, it was clear that his skills as an actor were tier's above the others'. Although supposed to be just the wing-man support for our beloved hero, Rupert Grint has emmerged as the star of the films, in my opinion. His talent is evident, because even when he is in the shot without any lines he is still the best actor on screen. I cannot wait to see him in the future two films, because that is where his part in the books really shines through, and will hopefully be mirrored by his acting on screen.

The three main characters scrutinized above are three of my favorite characters (not actors) ever. Because the Harry Potter books are my favorite books in the entire world I think that my opinion may be a touch biased. Nonetheless, you can't fake bad or good acting for 5 movies straight. After this long to improve and hone your skills, talent can either be observed as prsent or not. Oh, and in case I haven't made this point clear enough, i absolutely LOVE Harry Potter. :)

Little Miss Sunshine

Rating: 10

Scale: 1-5

This movie is honestly incredible. There are no words to describe how unbelievably brilliant this movie is. However, I will find some...

Starring Abigail Breslin, Alan Arkin, Steve Carell, Greg Kinnear, and many others, this film was made to perfection. To start off with te basics, the casting was done without a single mistake. It is probably one of the best casted films I have ever seen. Given that the story is about how screwed up the Hoover family is, it was perfect that none of the stars were depicted as 'glorious'. There was no Natalie Portman, or Kate Hudson. There was no Patrick Dempsey or Orlando Bloom. These were characters that looked like they could have come out of a typical abnormal family trying to make it through the day.

The story is about how messed up the Hoover family is. The plot basically is that they have to get to the Little Miss Sunshine beauty contest within two days so seven year old Olive (Abigail) can compete to win. The father is some psycho motivational speaker who can't get a job. The grandfather is a heroine addict. The brother took a vow of silence until he gets accepted to pilot school. The mother is a depressed chain smoker. Lastly, the uncle (Steve Carell) is a failed suicide attempt survivor. When you put all of these characters into one bus that can't start unless it is parked on a hill or you push it to shift into third gear, things are bound to go wrong.

The succession of unfortunate events worsen in this dead-pan comedy where you don't know if you should be laughing or crying. When brother Dwayne finds out he is color blind and therefore can't fly jets, I was unsure whether I should be upset that he can no longer achieve his dreams, or laugh because he acted the part superbly and it looked like his head was about to explode. When the grandfather dies, I should have been heartbroken because he was one of my favortie characters. However, the family steals him from the hospital, sneaks him out through the window, and shoves him into the back of their yellow bus trunk. How could I possibly be sad when these events were happening?

When they finally reach the beauty pageant, I, as well as the rest of the viewers sit stunned at how disgusting it was. There were young girls being spray tanned, applying make-up, doing their hair, not eating, and staring into mirrors. It was horrifying to watch these plastic children being forced to compete for a prize they probably don't even understand. I believe this was one of the morals of the story. To be yourself. Because despite how dysfunctional the Hoover family was, at the end of the film they all come to the agreement that competing in a beauty contest hinders the enjoyment of life, and only causes problems which kids should never experience. All of the issues that each family member experiences come together at the end and they connect because of it.

This movie is absolutely phenomenal. If I haven't spoiled it enough I encourage anyone who hasn't seen this movie yet to do so immediately. If you have already seen it I implore you to watch it again. Today was probably the tenth time I have viewed this film and it never gets old. Sneaking grandpa out the hospital window will forever be funny no matter how many times I watch this movie.

Bridge On The River Kwai

Apparently, my ENTIRE class despises this film. People were discussing a film switch, they were falling asleep, and all in all utterly uninterested in this film which has won 7 Oscars. According to my friend, "That must have been the only film made that year." And another, "They must have given Oscars to anyone back then." HA. I did laugh. I laughed for two reasons. Firstly, because they are actually very funny people and what they were saying was in fact amusing. However, I also laughed at the absurdity.

I understand that the genre may not be everyone's cup of tea. You have to have a specific taste to enjoy a war film, especially one like this. However, even if everything about the movie is awful, at least I would have thought that as mature film critics they would admire the enormous amounts of effort that went into filming it, considering it had absolutely no special effects. It was shot on location, and everyone we see sitting in our seats is exactly what the director saw as he watched the actors perform. To me, that is extremley cool (for lack of a better word).

Besides that, and fo reasons that even I could not tell you, I love war movies. For some unexplainable reason they draw my interest. I also like war novels, so maybe there is some correlation there. I'll have to look into that. But watching the story unfold of British and American soldiers captured in Japanese camps as Prisoners of War, in my opinion, is a captivating plot. These men are being demorilized, physically and mentally weakened by the day, and I enjoy seeing how people fight to survive. Watching movies about people who don't give up and drive themselves to fight on and succeed absolutely amazes me. If I walk away from a movie inspired, the director has done his job. The actors have done their job. The crew has done their job. The movie is phenomenal.

So far, although I have only viewed two days of Kwai, I feel empowered. Col. Nichelson has already defeated the opressor, and an American has already escaped. The former stuck to his morlas and beliefs and withstood what can only be considered torture in order to adhere to not just his country, but his troops who need strength. A Col. who understands that his men are in danger of falling victim to emotional defeat and risks his own life is an outstanding figure, and nothing short of a hero. The fact that this movie in only an hour has relayed this message on to me renders the movie outstanding as well.

I will catch up at the conclusion of this movie and give you my final opinions. Hopefully this film now lives up to the high expectations it has set for me. I also hope my friends change their mind and see the beauty in the movie.

Yes...Lola is still running.

Rating: 4

I have conflicting views on this movie. As afilm viewer, I appreciate the quality of the film, the innovation, and the artistic effort that clearly radiated through the finished product. The methods and mediums through which this film was shot, as well as the well-chosen music for the background were superb. However, how long can we watch a girl run accross an entire city? And them how long can we watch a girl run accross an entire city again? And then how long can we watch a girl run accross an entire city AGAIN?

I know I may sound a little bit harsh, but don't get me wrong. I really liked this movie a lot. It is actually an incredible film. I believe it is so amazing in part because of the cinemotagraphy, and in part to the meaning behind the story. I'd like to take this time and discuss what I think the film was trying to say.

Clearly the film was based around time. The category time branches off in so many different directions, and I am sad to admit my predictions were not completley accurate. What I thought was going to be a film underscoring the importance of time, actually was a film discussing the importance and impacts of decisions and learning. The best part of this film was that during each 'redo', it wasn't just the events of Lola's day that had been altered. Everyone, when given another chance, made different decisions that day. For example, the lady with the stroller made different decisions on different days, leading to completley different courses of her life. The great thing was that everyone's choice was just as important as everyone else's. The security guard intersected with Lola who intersected with her dad who intersected with Mr. Meyer, and so on and so forth.

The great web of life was illustrated beautifully. In addition to the impact one person can make on a complete stranger, learning was also a lesson to be learned from this film. Each successive try, Lola became a little more adept and able to succeed and accomplish her goal. Each time she was smarter, more aware, and ready to face the challenges she knew she was facing.

Although learning was one of the major themes in the movie, I believe another lesson that can be learned from Run Lola Run is the importance of love. Love drove most of the events that took place. It was amazing to see the love she had for Mani was enough to risk her life. She loved him so much that time was able to restart and she was given the oopportunity to start over. Her dad didn't love her mom, and in fact was in love with another woman. In the ambulance, the security guards heart was failing, and through holding hands with Lola was he able to stabilize. Love was a common thread between all the events that took place. Between decisions, learning, time, and love this movie discussed very profound ideas. If Lola hadn't been running for more than half the film, I would have rated it a 5. However, the repetetive-ness I feel was unecessary, and could have been avoided. Other than that, I believe this film is incredible and worth anyone's time.

Run Lola Run

For the first time ever, I am going to write a blog entry before finishing the film I am currently viewing. This film is called Run Lola Run. So far, it is intriguing. Though not spoken in English, the subtitles allow me to understand what exactly is going on as well as possible...if this movie is meant to be understood at all. The technique is unlike anything I have ever seen before. Between the camera movements, story, music, and medium it is being filmed in, this is certianly te most unique film I have ever seen.

The first thing I would like to discuss is the fact that this film goes in between regular action, animation, and quick montage-like polaroids flipping through the screen to tell the entire story. I spent most of the film wondering why the director would choose to film a movie in this way; what advantages does animation have over live action? It certainly intrigues the watcher, but that can't be the only reason it was being implemented. As of this point in the movie, I believe it is used to enhance the story. We saw animation for the most part when Lola was running. Clearly, Lola running is an intricate part to this story and the director wants to draw our attention to this. Not only is it in the title, but her running is being viewed in an entirely different medium than the rest of the film. I believe this draws attention to it, and later on in the film the running will play a large role in the story. This is my prediction, however, and I have no idea whether this will prove true.

Next, and most importantly, I would like to discuss the obvious theme in this film: time. Time and symbols relating to time appear EVERYWHERE. Time was referenced in the first quotes we hear at the beggining of the movie. The camera zooms in on clocks every so often. The first image we see is a swinging pendulum which later we discover hangs down from a giant clock. The first sounds we hear are the ticking of a clock. Throughout the rest of the beggining of the film the music continuously reminds me of the sound of a clock. The music, strategically picked, never lets your heart rest. It keeps you feeling like you yourself are racing the clock, and that you are running out of time.

This theme of clocks connects closely with the idea that timing is everything. This also ran through the amount of the film I have seen so far. Everyone and everything connects to each other, and the timing of the actions are what cause the effect. The movie sets up the idea that every single thing is a chain of reactions, and I believe that something small and insignificant that I saw today will come back at a later time and have a big impact on the story of the movie. Timing and clocks are interwoven throughout the entire story so far and as someone who has now seen and analyzed quite a few movies I believe this is no coincidence.

I will post later once I have seen the rest of the movie. These are my predictions. I could be incredibly wrong. The best movies are the ones that you cannot predict. However, these are my expectations and I am extremley curious to see how well this movie, though as unconventional as it is, follows the traditional ideas of setting the viewer up for what is to come.

M-azing.

1931 German film M is a thriller about a child murderer who cannot be caught. This sends Germany into a panic because their children can no longer be left alone to play on the street. I would like to take this blog entry, and instead of praising the film for its ideas and directing, do a mis en scene of what I believe to be the most important part of the entire film.

In this scene, the murderer has just been recognized. One of the homeless men drew an M on his hand in chalk to mark the murderers back. This way, he cannot escape. This was the turning point of the entire movie, in my opinion. Prior to the M, the conflict was primarily between the murderer and the children. However, not the conflict is not whether the kids are in danger anymore, but how are they going to capture this monster. The focal point of the movie takes a 180 spin and this is no longer a child murderer mystery film. From this point on, the film is about the chase. This frame captures the face of the murderer perfectly. To anyone viewing this picture, the fear in his eyes is evident; it is written all over his all-too-readable face. It is also clear that the fear is directly connected to the M that had just been placed on his back. However, to anyone viewing this frame without seeing the movie it is not known whether he knows the M is there or not.

What is also important in this shot is the placement of the figures. Most of the frame is taken up by the child murderer. He is looking over his shoulder, which symbolizes looking into the past, perhaps regret. However, as viewers know he feels none of that. The fact that he is looking over his shoulder means only that he is regretting that he got caught, nothing else. The homeless man takes up a small portion of the screen, while the little child who is the target of M takes up none of it, although she is a main part of this scene. This is no accident. Although the child is the sole reason for this man to be caught, she is no longer of any importance. The viewer understands that the children are no longer in danger, and the fight has evolved to a completley new level.

I know I said I wouldn't praise this movie, however I can't not say a few good things about it since most of my entries are negative critiques. This was a thriller unlike any modern ones made. I never expected to like a black and white German film, but I was in fact surprised to find it intriguing. Unlike the gory movies made today, I thought the director did an excellent job instilling some feelings of fear in the viewer without having to show any disgusting details. This film is indeed M-azing.