Post 3

"Sunset Blvd." has most definitely opened my eyes as to why Hollywood has been viewed so awesomely throughout my life. Hollywood's first Golden Age gave birth to legendary actors and timeless directors. there is no question why these individuals are framed so. This age produced films, like "Sunset Blvd.," which captured audiences with their screenplay, camera technique and usage, and of course, the acting. There was no extremely developed computer imaging and editing. There was not the high-tech equipment utilized on a daily basis today. There was no top-of-the-line, over-the-top film making techniques which spread from sound to imaging to all sections of Hollywood. The age was one of mastering that which was available and the creation of novel methods and ideas to uncover the endless possibilities of reaching into people's hearts and minds.

I have seen a few older movies but very rarely do I catch a film from the pre-70s or even 80s era. However, many of these, such as "The Pit and the Pendulum" and "Young Frankenstein." Both of these films exhibit wonderful acting that, when examined fairly, surpasses most "good" acting of today's silver screen. I'm not sure if the black and white effect is what throws me off or a combination of the storyline, acting, and camera-work, but these older movies seem to have more of an effect on me than newer films. This mystery is possibly due to my awareness in newer movies of all the computer imaging and editing that allows the various fear factors to seem so real when in fact, this fact, in some way, makes them seem artificial (which they are). Thus, the fear factor from 50s, 60s, and even 70s movies is quite dependent upon the acting and talent of the director(s) and cameramen. Not to take away from that of today's actors, directors, cameramen, etc. I am merely impressing the lack of available technology in today's Hollywood in comparison to Hollywood's first Golden Age and the products which have come forth from each era, respectively.

Post 2

As we further the specifics of our discussion in class, we begin searching through the "behind-the-scenes" parts of movie making. Many regular movie goers may not appreciate the detail and mechanics and technology it takes to make movies-especially those with extensive computer imaging. This past class we looked at the behind the scenes features of Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings. Both are extremely intricate and such is proven by the amount of time and work, but most importantly the skill that went into making these movies. Preceding these contemporary movies, comes the classics and innovative films which facilitated film development. One of these being "Citizen Kane." Orson Welles directed and acted in the film. He was the leading mind behind the novel transitions used in the movie and the novel types of shots utilized.

I was not very interested in this part of movie making before. Acting was the only part which was attractive to me. However, after realizing how these masters of art actually create the images and sounds I see in theaters and at home, I find it hard not to be intrigued. The imagination each player has to use and maintain in order to come through with the best possible product is fantastic.

It is obvious that the intricacies of film making are quite interesting to me and probably most other individuals who learn about what goes on with the cameras and computers rather than in front of them!

Post 1

The world of film is full of a variety of viewers. There are the avid lovers and critics. There are the simple enjoyers. There are the followers who are merely attracted to the films which they hear are worthwhile. Among others, there are also those movie lovers who lack the awareness of the extent of their passion. These individuals (like myself) enjoy films and all that encompasses the making of films, however, lack the full motivation to extend their passion. I feel that this class will improve my standards and understanding of the film community and ideas.

I have never really delved into the history of film and the motivation/progression of the early stages of film. It would seem to me that such technology would inevitably develop eventually. This idea does not take away from the interest which sparks from the actual progression that occurred. From still pictures, to multiple, chronological still pictures, to the idea of motion pictures and so forth. Such a timeline represents not only the history of film but the very essence which film has become today: a constant development.