Movement is undeniably one of the most important parts of cinema without it we wouldn 't be calling them “movies”. An often overlooked part of the art of cinema, if done well it can make a scene even more impactful and convey as much information as dialogue can about how the character is thinking and feeling. On of the elements of movement that makes it so important to the art is its ability to completely change the meaning of a scene just by changing the position of the camera. “A director can photograph the same subject—a running man, for example—in two different setups and produce opposite meanings. If the man is photographed in an extreme long shot from a high angle, he will seem ineffectual and impotent.
There are quite a few advantages and disadvantages when considering using film as a depicter of the past. One of the biggest advantages of film is its ability to provide visual representation for any situation. Especially when it comes to history, sometimes words do not do the situation justice. For example, the treatment of slaves is widely recognized as being cruel. However, movie possess the ability to show you the cruelty and make you understand as it did in this movie.
Hollywood favors drama and conflict, so when an historical story lacks one of these elements, it is often simply added for the sake of appeal. This practice falls under great scrutiny by those with a serious interest in the events that these movies portray. Because the better part of American viewers expect and demand stories told with the Hollywood spin, those films that attempt to stick doggedly to the facts generally do poorly in the box-office.  Many historical films, however, have found success while staying true to the facts. These films oftentimes come from producers, directors, and actors with a genuine concern for the events they deal with.
There are two main differences between the movies, The Ring, and Ringu that make them stand apart from eachother. The Ring was more believable and seemed to me to be more of a horror movie, than Ringu. Because of these points, I heavily favored The Ring. There were many things in the plot and even in the actors themselves that made Ringu seem less believable as a story, and as equally less believable as a horror movie. First, the psychic storyline in Ringu seemed farfetched and rather ridiculous.
The interesting thing in many of the movies like these, is the enemy is often portrayed in an extremely negative, almost so extreme, they could be compared to the Nazis. Hollywood uses that Nazis as the level setter for enemies, it does not get worse than them. It is interesting to see how Taratino portrays the ... ... middle of paper ... ... taken with a grain of salt, because everyone will show his or her true colors when the time comes. Inglorious Basterds creates an atmosphere that has never been matched in a war film. It addresses the most serious issues with the leisure of a comedy.
However, Arlington Road does utilize some of these Hitchcock characteristics well. The first and most obvious of the similarities is the destruction of the stereotypical, (Mr. Rogers’, if you will), neighborhoo... ... middle of paper ... ...d Hitchcockian precedent in the closing scenes. While Arlington Road is a decent attempt at recreating a Hitchcock thriller, such as Rear Window, and manages to nail several elements thereof, it falls short in three areas that ultimately ruined the film’s chances of measuring up to the genre’s former greatness. Arlington Road and Rear window are strikingly similar in their undermining of institutions of social order, relatable protagonists, and charismatic villains. However, Arlington Road does not successfully utilize POV editing, does not properly manage the heightening of suspense, and does not restore moral order in the end of the film.
Not satisfied with the standard performance of other moviemakers, Disney’s mind was set to use his captivation for films and artistic expression to create an esteemed pastime for many. During a u... ... middle of paper ... ...d into his distinctive use of simple structures and everyday instances to create enhancing charismata. He invested much of his time and money into his business, hoping it would be successful, and provided comfort and joy in a time deep in despair. Walt Disney was the role model of the twentieth century movie industry, and his legacy continues to live on. To this day, the Disney Company is a thriving business, which many families look upon to as wholesome entertainment.
A tragic hero is a virtuous character destined for a downfall. Charlie Chaplin was a righteous soul, and at the peak of fame, Charlie Chaplin was the star of silent movies, and he “scored an immediate hit with American audiences” (Charlie Overview). Chaplin’s success, happening in a short period of time, excited businesses to start bidding for his service. His movies in the 1930s and 1940s were the true gems throughout his career (World). Practically on top of the world, all loved Charlie Chaplin.
He has played in such movies as Dangerous Ground, Higher Learning, and Boyz 'N Tha Hood. Playing opposite of him was Chris Tucker who is one of the most gifted performers that I've have seen. He has stared in hits such as Rush Hour, The Fifth Element, and Money Talks. These two along with other big comics like Bernie Mac, John Whitherspoon, and Fazion Love bring big laughs to the big screen. Tiny "Zeus" Lester, Nia Long and Regina King do there part as well, to serve up laughs.
For Elf Jon Favreau went with an all-star cast of Will Ferrell, Zooey Deschanel, Peter Dinklage, and James Caan. These actors fill their roles perfectly and create humorous memories that will last a lifetime. In 2003, whenever Elf was released, Will Ferrell was coming off of his great run at Saturday Night Live and accompanied with the great success of Zoolander would make Ferrell the perfect candidate. However, Ferrell’s role wouldn’t have been complete without his other stars. Zooey Deschanel would serve perfectly as Jovie, Peter Dinklage as Miles Finch, and James Caan as Buddy’s father.