Frame of Reference 2013

FRAME OF REFERENCE

2013

Contributors Editor

Alessandra Bautze

Copyeditors

Hannah Ingersoll Elizabeth Mattson Annie Rhee

Writers

Bardia Bararpour Bedram Bararpour Alessandra Bautze David Berenato Evelyn Feeney Hannah Ingersoll Ian McMurray Annie Rhee Nour El Safoury Jessica Terekhov

Sponsor

The Johns Hopkins Film Society

Editor’s Note The 2013 issue of Frame of Reference, The Johns Hopkins University’s only cinema magazine, is a true testament to the diversity of the film community.

Everyone invested in film culture brings a different perspective, a different “frame of reference,” to this community. Whether one is interested in summer tentpole blockbusters, independent film, foreign film, or experimental video and beyond, film offers something for everyone, from all walks of life and all backgrounds. The diversity of thought and the depth of intellectual discourse for which Hopkins is renowned are showcased here within these pages. As a voice for the Johns Hopkins film community, Frame of Reference seeks to represent these diverse perspectives on cinema as entertainment and cinema as literature. With the untimely passing of film critic Roger Ebert (1942-2013) this past April, who filled the pages of the Chicago Sun-Times with his astute commentaries on the film form, it seems fitting to celebrate the concretization of reflections on film through the written word here in this magazine.

Through the immensely powerful medium of writing, committed individuals are expressing their love for yet another powerful medium—cinema. I invite you to explore these pages and celebrate this spirit of inquiry, discussion, and diversity.

Best wishes, Alessandra Bautze Editor, Frame of Reference

Who’s Who?: Me HANNAH INGERSOLL is a member of the Class of 2016 and the JHU Film Society. Her favorite movies are character driven with a twist at the end. Her guilty pleasures include anything with dragons, superpowers, or ninja fighting. She will tear up during inspirational speeches (eg. V for Vendetta, Milk, The King's Speech, etc) and cry like a baby every time a character cries, regardless whether the movie is any good (eg. Columbiana, Les Misérables, Wreck-It-Ralph, etc). Her article, “Tales of Ourselves,” appears on page 6.

EVELYN FEENEY is a member of the Class of 2015 majoring in Film & Media Studies. She is interested in film production and is thinking of becoming an editor or director. She loves thrillers and horror flicks and enjoys taking 35mm photography. Her article, “Demystifying the Horror Genre,” appears on page 8.

IAN MCMURRAY is a member of the Class of 2015 majoring in Writing Seminars and Film & Media Studies. He enjoys escaping into film, and once walked several blocks behind Christopher Plummer without knowing it. His article, “Fictional Playlists for Fictional People,” can be found on page 9.

ANNIE RHEE is a member of the Class of 2016 double majoring in Cognitive Science and Film & Media Studies. When not studying the brain or making grandly vague plans for the future, she likes to grab a basket of munchies, wrap herself up in a blanket and watch a film from her ever-growing movie hitlist. Her article, “Heroes, Horrors, Halflings (and a lot of sequels): The Rest of 2013’s Most Anticipated Movies,” appears on page 10.

DAVID BERENATO is a member of the Class of 2015 majoring in Writing Seminars. He enjoys Disney movies, French films, and hopes to one day write the screenplay for the next great Pixar movie. His article, “A Review of The Croods: When Did DreamWorks Animation Start Caring?” appears on page 13.

eet Our Writers BARDIA BARARPOUR is a member of the Class of 2015 and is majoring in Applied Mathematics and Statistics. He regards The Assassination of Jesse James as his favorite film and enjoys watching soccer and listening to Tom Waits. His article, “Best Up-and-Coming Directors,” can be found on page 16.

BEDRAM BARARPOUR is a member of the Class of 2015 majoring in Political Science. He enjoys watching the films of David Lynch and likes to collect VHS movies. His article, “Sophomore Efforts to Look Out For in 2013,” appears starting on page 18.

NOUR EL SAFOURY is a Film & Media Studies and Philosophy double major. She is expecting to graduate in December 2013. Currently, she is exploring the films of Fernando Pérez Valdés. Her article, “A Cross-Section: The Case of Tony Manero,” starts on page 20.

ALESSANDRA BAUTZE is a double major in Writing Seminars and Film & Media Studies in the Class of 2014. She particularly enjoys French-language films, as well as documentaries. She also has a passion for screenwriting, and is an avid fan of Doc Martens boots. Her article, “So That Others Might Live and Be Free: Thoughts on How to Survive a Plague,” begins on page 26.

JESSICA TEREKHOV is an English major minoring in Film. She is in the Class of 2016. She loves TCM, borrows movies from libraries, and enjoys any classic she can find on YouTube (bag of yogurt-covered cranberries preferred). Her article, “Just Loving the Art,” appears on page 30.

Tales of Ourselves

By Hannah Ingersoll I WENT to a couple of different film screenings hosted by Hopkins’ Tournées French Film Festival this past February, but the most creative film by far was Tales of the Night (Les Contes de la nuit) by director Michel Ocelot. It is an incredibly magical compilation of world myths and fairytales interwoven with original material by the filmmakers. All the characters, human and monster alike, are completely in silhouette — like black paper cutouts — surrounded by the bright, vibrant, colorful worlds of their stories.

In an abandoned movie theater, three playwrights are hard at work creating ideas for plays based off of stories from different cultures. The three of them — a young man, a young woman, and an older gentleman — rifle through books, manuscripts, and internet pages to find inspiration for their plays.

However, this is as far as realism goes in Tales of the Night. Once each story is chosen,

we fall away from the realm of reality and land in a world of magic. Fantastical machines construct their costumes and build a world behind a curtain far too expansive to fit on a stage. The young man and woman transform into their characters and we, the viewers, are swept into the fairytale.

The playwrights produce six different plays. The first is called The Werewolf and is based off of European fairytales. Set in Medieval Europe, the play revolves around two sisters. Both sisters are vying for the affections of a prince who secretly turns into a werewolf during the full moon. The story is a classic fairytale where good prevails over evil, but the way in which it is told is so unique — from the solemn delivery of the lines to the graceful animation of the silhouetted wolf staring at us through glowing eyes — that we feel truly transported into another world.

The second tale is my personal favorite: Tijean and Beauty-Without-Knowing. It is a Caribbean tale with a hilarious protagonist, an unconventional moral, and a surprise twist at the end. The four following stories — The Chosen One and The City Of Gold, The Boy Tam-Tam, The Boy Who Never Lied, and The Doe-Girl and the Architect's Son — become progressively more unconventional in nature, and their morals become more complicated and thoughtprovoking. The Boy Who Never Lied is especially unique. A terribly tragic tale about love and betrayal, it is almost hard to glean a moral from it at all. The hero forgives the hated villain, even as we, the viewers, cannot. It is a complex story, and it left me with conflicting feelings and tears in my eyes.

This is the true magic of Tales of the Night: the complexity of the stories. While the animation is beautiful and creative, the stories themselves travel to depths we did not know fairytales could take us to. Incredibly imaginative and compellingly raw, Michel Ocelot has created a true tour de force that few other films can match. I left the theater in silence, so caught-up in the world he created that it took me some time to return to my own. And even when I finally did come back to reality,

it had a different flavor to it because I had come to the realization that something as simple as a childhood fairytale can speak more volumes about human nature and emotion than I could ever have imagined. ď ˘

Demystifying the Horror Genre

By Evelyn Feeney ASKING EVELYN Feeney, age 8, to sit down and watch a horror movie, would provoke the same reaction I used to have when going to the dentist. Blood, guts, and gore were not my thing. My younger self would have never voluntarily sat down to watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, or Saw. Even Nightmare Before Christmas would have been enough to cause me to run for cover. As a kid, I felt the horror genre left a lot to be desired.

The characters of horror films often act irrationally, allowing the script to kill them off with relative ease, while simultaneously ensuring that the audience doesn't become too attached to any one fated teen.

Secondly, nearly all horror movies utilize some larger entity (Michael Meyers, sexually aggressive trees, Jigsaw) that has presence both on and off screen. On screen, the monster speaks for itself. However, horror film directors often utilize the absence of the Now fast forward. Ask Evelyn Feeney, monster, rather than its presence, to satisfyingly frightening effect. The third element, age 20, to go see the newest horror flick at then, is the absence of the villain. This abthe theater, and chances are I saw it on sence allows filmic elements like sound editopening night. If you need more proof, look ing, music, and lighting become essential to at my Netflix queue—you'll see that frightening the audience more than any cosI've made up for lost time, and in fact tumed monster might. A perhave grown into something of a “I think a greater fectly synchronous sequence of fright film connoisseur. film education, frightened breathing, high conWhat catalyzed this draand more expo- trast lighting, and sudden noise matic change? The horror genre from behind is sure to get the is typically divisive in a lasting sure to fellow ciaudience to jump. way—either you love horror

nephiles, made my aversion to horror less concrete, and more malleable.”

Interestingly, these clichés of horror films may initially make the genre seem less appealing— if all horror films utilize the I suspect the answer is first same tricks, then why bother simple, then complex. Put simply, seeing more than one? HowevI think a greater film education, er, the reality is that watching and more exposure to fellow cinephiles, the tropes activated in any horror film gives made my aversion to horror less concrete, the individual audience member a sense of and more malleable. How did my film educaadrenaline that is intoxicating. The greater tion help? By providing me with a greater the knowledge of how horror films function knowledge of horror film tropes, as well as can lead one to participate in jump-starting informing me of the overarching purpose of their adrenaline-fueled viewing. the slasher film.

I love horror because it gives me the First, horror film universals (tropes): opportunity to (temporarily) feel as though I firstly, premise. Many horror films can be am in danger, which gives me a fuller appresummarized with “stupid teenagers are sysciation for the everyday. After all, what adult tematically killed in cabin,” and neardoesn't need a good scare to spook them out ly all horror films can be summarized with “stupid teenagers are systematically killed.” of the ordinary and the everyday?  films for life, or you hate them for life. What helped me to grow into my big-girl-grave-digger boots?

Fictional Playlists for Fictional People

By Ian McMurray WHAT HAPPENS when Darth Vader clocks out of the Death Star for the day?

What music gets Norman Bates through his daily housekeeping duties at Bates Motel?

Does Forrest Gump have any favorite jams he listens to while waiting for the bus? Film narratives often overlook the mundane lives of their central characters, so JHU Film Society will take a stab at guessing what music some of cinema's most iconic characters would download (legally or illegally—here's looking at you, Neo).

2: “Sleepin In” by The Postal Service 3: “Home” by Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros 4: “Ocean Man” by Ween 5: “Baba O'Riley” by The Who 6: “Jenny” by Walk the Moon 7: “Forrest Gump” by Frank Ocean 8: “Rainbow Connection” by The Muppets

Playlist: “A Playlist I Made”

By Norman Bates There's a little bit here for the entire Bates family. The songs don't go together terribly well—but then again, Norman Bates isn't Playlist: “Music to Force To” quite “of one mind,” either.

By Darth Vader 1: “Surfin' Bird” by The Trashmen Featuring the best of the really old and the pretty old, this playlist gets Vader through- 2: “Creep” by Radiohead 3: “Sweet Disposition” by The Temper Trap out his entire day—from force-choking his 4: “Bohemian Rasphody” by Queen inferiors in the workplace, to retiring from the Death Star for a relaxing night of heavy, 5: “Illest Mother****** Alive” by Jay-Z, Kanye West ragged breathing.

1: “Ain't No Rest for the Wicked” by Cage the 6: “If I Had a Heart” by Fever Ray Elephant 2: “Bad Moon Rising” by Creedence Clearwa- Playlist: “The Seven Dwarfs: Greatest Hits”

By Snow White ter Revival 3: “The Great Gig in the Sky” by Pink Floyd. Upon her marriage to Prince Charming, the dwarfs made Snow White a playlist to com4: “Nightcall” by Kavinsky & Lovefoxxx 5: “You Put a Smell on Me” by Matthew Dear memorate each of their unique personalities.

Here's what Snow White went away with: 6: “Fools” by The Dodos 1: “Grumpy” by Ray Scott 7: “Sympathy for the Devil” by The Rolling 2: “I Need a Doctor” by Dr. Dre, Eminem, Stones and Sklar Grey 8: “Rocket Man” by Elton John 3: “My Stupid Mouth” by John Mayer 9: “Oh Daddy” by Fleetwood Mac 10: “Still Alive” by GlaDOS and Johnathan 4: “Sleepyhead” by Passion Pit 5: “Bashful” by Kwes Coulton 6: “Odd One” by Sick Puppies 7: “You Could Be Happy” by Snow Patrol  Playlist: “The Box of Chocolates”

By Forrest Gump Everyone's favorite Gump listens to music that reminds him of his various adventures, the important lessons he's learned along the way, and of who he is (literally).

1: “We Are Gonna Be Friends” by The White Stripes

Heroes, Horrors, Halflings (and a lot of sequels): The Rest of 2013’s Most Anticipated Movies

By Annie Rhee 10. Oldboy (dir. Spike Lee) PARK CHAN-WOOK’S controversial and legendary 2003 film looks like it will be getting a Hollywood remake—But hold the oh god’s and not again’s! While Hollywood has a reputation for supremely mangling some beautiful international films to try and cater to a more “American” audience, there’s still some hope for Oldboy (2013) breaking this steady stream of failure. Helmed by Spike Lee, a director famous for his strong artistic vision, and with the lead roles to be performed by established actors such as Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Olsen, and the iconic Samuel L. Jackson, this film just might be something worth waiting for.

Release Date: October 11 9. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (dir.

Francis Lawrence) Hollywood found its answer to Harry Potter’s decade-long franchise last year in the Hunger Games trilogy, and they’ve been relatively successful so far! Mostly due to a huge fanbase for the books and the actors, to be honest, rather than the quality of the film. But then again, that goes for most book-to -film adaptations. There are no trailers out yet for this upcoming film except for a very sparse teaser, but the hype is certainly there. Hope-

fully Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend, Water for Elephants) will have learned from the last film’s mistakes—AKA vertigo-inducing cinematography and abridging too much material for the film to have any emotional impact—and allow Catching Fire to set the screens ablaze with as much explosive action and drama as in the book.

Release Date: November 22 8. The World’s End (dir. Edgar Wright) The director of Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz is back again with another tongue-incheek comedy, closing up the third installment of his Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy.

Starring the familiar faces of Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, and Martin Freeman (who is also starring in The Hobbit, see below), The World’s End will be a parody of our apocalyptic disaster films—and if the previous two films are any indicator of the quality of this one, I seriously doubt we’ll be disappointed!

Release Date: August 23 7. Despicable Me 2 (dir. Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud) Adorable, hilarious, and surprisingly touching, Despicable Me took people of all ages by a storm, partly thanks to those pill-shaped

minions and their ridiculous giggles. Finally, it looks like we’ll be getting more of this delicious mix of family-friendly fun this summer! If the trailer is any indicator of quality, I think we can more than anticipate once again indulging in everything we found so endearing in the original film, plus a little sprinkle of animated aplomb.

Release Date: July 3 6. The Great Gatsby (dir. Baz Luhrmann) Baz Luhrmann’s style is provocative, extravagant, and divisive—look no further than his earlier works in Moulin Rouge! and Romeo + Juliet to understand why. His directorial prowess is undeniable, but whether Luhrmann’s hand is right for this delicate, sometimes flamboyant, but always beautifully melancholy, work has yet to be determined. The Great Gatsby looks like it will be no less fantastical than his previous films, but as for whether it will be truly spectacular, or simply a lavish spectacle…

Well, you can decide for yourself in theaters this summer.

Release Date: May 10 5. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (dir. Peter Jackson) The second installment of Peter Jackson’s trilogy will be warming up cinemas across the globe this winter. While the first film was regarded as tedious and self-indulgent and failed to impress critics and general movie-goers alike, hopefully the entrance of the story’s main villain, the treasurehoarding dragon Smaug, will help the second film pick up the extra stars its predecessor missed. I’m also personally interested in seeing how people’s reception of the 48 frames-per-second projection may have changed in the year since its much-debated debut!

Release Date: December 13

4. Star Trek: Into Darkness (dir. J.J. Abrams) In this sequel to the well-received Star Trek (2009) remake, Captain Kirk is faced with evil once again. Not the irrational, foreign, black-and-white evil that he encountered within the Romulans, but a much more lethal, utterly calm evil that seems to be originating from one of his very own Starfleet comrades. At least, that is according to the trailers, since the production team has been tight-lipped about spreading any information about our villain-to-be. With most of the 2009 cast and crew having returned to create the sequel, I’m crossing my fingers that Star Trek: Into Darkness won’t fall into the classic sophomore slump of movie sequels. (And here’s a fun fact: this film will be hitting theaters nationwide the day spring semester ends for us Blue Jays!)

Release Date: May 17 3. Thor: The Dark World (dir. Alan Taylor) It looks like both Whovians and Sherlockians are going to have a date with the dark side this year. Not only is Benedict Cumberbatch of BBC’s Sherlock featuring in two blockbuster films in villainous roles (The Hobbit and Star Trek, see above), but Christopher Eccleston will be playing the main antagonist of this film as well! Now, all miscellaneous fan-talk aside—Marvel has been keeping the lid tight on the jar for Thor: The Dark World, with no real

confident that Snyder’s adaption will both respect and refresh the tradition and history of the legendary Superman.

Release Date: June 14

trailer to speak of and only a chaotic teaser to work with that reveals very little of the actual plot. Even the official poster that is currently out is simply a blank, black page with the title and release date. But even with almost zero material to work off of, excitement for seeing the return of the cast and crew and yet another installment in Marvel’s huge Avengers franchise has been keeping this sequel high in the gossip charts.

Release Date: November 8

1. Iron Man 3 (dir. Shane Black) Everyone loves Iron Man. (Okay, well maybe not everyone. But just about!) Who can resist the wit, humor, and larger-than-life charisma that Robert Downey Jr. infuses into his role as Tony Stark? When it comes to the heroes of mainstream action flicks today, close competition is difficult to find.

If the trailers provide any clues, Iron Man 3 looks like it will be transcending the boundaries of its previous two installments, heightening the production scale and delving into darker emotions. That kind of progression tends to be typical in superhero films (see: basically all the sequels in this list), but Iron Man 3 almost certainly will continue to amaze and thrill with flashy graphics and smart dialogue.

Release Date: May 3

Honorable Mentions: Ender’s Game 2. Man of Steel (dir. Zack Snyder) (dir. Gavin Hood; November 1) Directed by Zack Snyder (whose works include Watchmen, 300, and Dawn of the Dead) Kon-Tiki (dir. Joachim Ronning, Espen Sandberg; and produced by Christopher Nolan of the April 19) The Dark Knight trilogy, Man of Steel has all the makings of a slick and stylish—and may- Monsters University (dir. Dan Scanlon; June 21) be even classy?—summer Hollywood blockbuster. Zack Snyder’s previous films display Much Ado About Nothing his predilection for luscious action shots, viv- (dir. Joss Whedon; June 21) Pacific Rim id colors and highly dynamic compositions. dir. Guillermo del Toro; July 12) Check, check, and check, goes the trailer.

The Counselor ( The casting of some dir. Ridley Scott; November 15) prominent Hollywood The Grandmaster heavyweights such as (dir. Wong Kar Wai; U.S. release date unKevin Costner and Rusknown) sell Crowe seems to The Internship point in a positive direc(dir. Shawn Levy; June 7) tion for the film as well, World War Z ( although it is no guarandir. Marc Forster; June 21)  tee. (I’m just going to say, Les Misérables.)

While I can’t claim to be a connoisseur of graphic novels, I think we can be

A Review of The Croods: When Did DreamWorks Animation Start Caring?

By David Berenato IN A last-second decision to go to the movies on Friday, I was faced with a tough choice: the James Franco and Selena Gomez indie film Spring Breakers, or the DreamWorks animated film The Croods. I looked over at my seventeen-year-old sister, and doubted that I could sit through a sex scene with High School Musical’s Vanessa Hudgens and Wizards of Waverly Place’s Selena Gomez (not sure if this scene actually exists), so I purchased a ticket for the family film. While sitting through it, I came to the realization that it was actually emotionally powerful and visually stunning, and I double checked my IMDb app to make sure this was in fact DreamWorks SKG, the same studio that made Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda, and Bee Movie. Something has changed in DreamWorks over the past few years, and I was determined to find out why.

In 1995, Pixar director John Lasseter released the first ever computer-animated feature film in history, Toy Story. Up until that point, Walt Disney was the world’s leading studio for animated films, having released 33 animated feature films between 1937 and 1995. Disney distributed Pixar’s films, but it didn’t own them. For fear of losing the industry to the developing technology of 3D animation, Disney bought Pixar in 2006.

his colony from Pixar. Some allege that Katzenberg even spent extra to make sure Antz was completed before A Bug’s Life, despite it

having been started later. The rivalry between Pixar and DreamWorks began with a bang.

But the two studios couldn’t have been more different from the beginning. Pixar’s first few films were Toy Story, A Bug’s Life, and Monsters Inc. All three are emotional family films about friendship, bravery, and self-discovery. DreamWorks, on the other hand, chose projects such as Shrek, Shark Tale, and Madagascar. DreamWorks relies heavily on satire, social commentary through comedy, and slapstick. The DreamBut back in the mid-90s, another stuWorks tone is actually reminiscent of the dio emerged to combat the rising superpowWarner Brothers’ Looney Tunes cartoons, er. Jeffrey Katzenberg left his position as which broke bones just about as much as chairman of Disney Animation to co-found they broke the fourth wall. But as Disney DreamWorks SKG with Steven Spielberg and successfully transitioned in feature films, David Geffen in 1994. Their first feature the Looney Tunes fell behind in the race for film, Antz, was released just one month beanimation dominance. fore Pixar’s second feature, A Bug’s Life, in So DreamWorks started its career on the fall of 1998. A massive controversy erupted over whether Katzenberg had stolen essentially racing to beat Pixar films to the box office with almost identical concepts. A the idea to make a film from the point of view of a male ant trying to find his place in Bug’s Life (1998) versus Antz (1998), Finding

So when The Croods was playing, I couldn’t help but feel I had seen that plot before. I got that feeling in my heart: “Oh God, what Disney or Pixar film did they rip this off of?” Basically, The Croods tells the story of a prehistoric family, headed by the overprotective patriarch “Grug,” that is forced to leave their home because of the collapse of the prehistoric supercontinent Pangaea. When the group meets a forwardthinking and impressively intelligent man But Pixar had two things Dreamaptly named “Guy,” everyone but the patriWorks failed to attain time and time again: arch follows his lead in adapting to the Oscars and staying power. In the twelve modern world. I scratched my head. And years that the Academy Award for Best Anithen, suddenly, in a scene where Grug tries to act all cool by pretending to be just like Guy to win back his family’s respect, it hit me.

The Croods was a revamped version of DreamWorks’ own Over The Hedge.

Nemo (2003) versus Shark Tale (2004), and Ratatouille (2007) versus Flushed Away (2006). The entire Shrek series is a parody of the Disney image itself, and yet DreamWorks was making bank off of its seemingly underhanded method. Pixar had its heartfelt stories and Disney’s moral compass, while DreamWorks had the Looney Tunes type humor that appealed to adults and children alike.

mated Feature has existed, Pixar has won it seven times. DreamWorks has won it twice, for Shrek (2001) and Wallace and Gromit (2005). Aside from that, Pixar makes millions off of its merchandise for two reasons: the characters are likeable and people continue to watch the films years after they are released. I don’t know anyone who owns a Will Smith fish toy, but just about everyone had a Buzz Lightyear or Woody in the ‘90s.

In 2006, DreamWorks released an animated comedy about a dysfunctional family of forest animals that wakes up from hibernation to find themselves on the last plot of natural land, surrounded by a shiny new suburb of upper middle class families. The group is headed by a turtle named Verne, whose main concern is that the family finds enough food for the next hibernation. But when a smart-talking, Bruce Willis-voiced raccoon named RJ joins the group in order

So what does this say about DreamWorks? Are they turning over a new leaf, or is Chris Sanders just an artist working at the wrong studio? It’s hard to say, because in today’s world, emotionally detached films that rely on slapstick (Kung Fu Panda 2) and good films that tell beautiful stories (Brave) both do well at the box office. In the top ten highest grossing animated films of all time, Pixar has three spots (Toy Story 3, Finding Nemo, Up) and DreamWorks has four (Shrek 2, Shrek the Third, Shrek Forever After, and Madagascar 3). DreamWorks and Pixar have spent a lot of time on opposite sides of the In 2010, DreamWorks released How spectrum in terms of the tone To Train of their films, but a converYour Drag- “So what does this say about gence seems to be taking place on. It was DreamWorks? Are they turning over the past few years. And directed over a new leaf, or is Chris Sanders seeing as Pixar and Dreamand written just an artist working at the wrong Works SKG are the two highest

by Chris Sanders, a studio? It’s hard to say, because in grossing studios per film of all time, I can only wonder how Disney today’s world, emotionally dethis race will play out for the alumnus tached films that rely on slapstick future generations of kids being most shaped by the animated films known for (Kung Fu Panda 2) and good films around them.  his helming to gather enough food to pay back a bear he owes, he teaches them the ways of the humans. He introduces them to junk food, music, cars, and home security systems. In an attempt at gaining his control over the group back, Verne joins RJ in a massive heist of human food, but everything goes wrong and the two must put aside their differences to protect the group. The relationship between Verne, RJ, and their group was almost identical to that of Grug, Guy, and Grug’s caveman family. I had to wonder if this was intentional.

of 2002’s Lilo & Stitch. This was DreamWorks’ closest attempt at recreating the timeless, emotionally resonant film that Pixar had nailed in each and every one of their films.

Chris Sanders was given the project of The Croods, and turned a story of cavemen into the story of a family. It was relatable and moving in the way I would expect of a Pixar film. It didn’t once rely on pop culture references that movies like Bee Movie and Shark Tale overused, and it never broke the fourth wall. It was a film, not an animated cash-in at the 3D Box Office.

Best Up-and-Coming Directors

By Bardia Bararpour Andrew Dominik Nicolas Winding Refn ANDREW DOMINIK began his career directing music videos, but has since written and directed three acclaimed films with violent men at their center. 2000’s Chopper dealt with infamous Australian criminal Mark “Chopper” Read and helped launch Eric Bana’s career. Dominik experienced trouble in financing his next project, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, but was able to gather funds once Brad Pitt expressed interest in the lead. The film garnered two Academy Award Nominations at the 2008 Oscars: Best Cinematography for Roger Deakins and Best Supporting Actor for Casey Affleck. While the film enjoyed critical success, it failed to produce at the box office. Consequently, Dominik found it difficult to land a job for several years. Once again the allure of Brad Pitt helped him secure a budget, this time to finance his politically driven mob film Killing Them Softly.

Dominik’s next project will be based on Joyce Carol Oates’ fictional take on Marilyn Monroe. The film is titled Blonde, and Dominik describes it as “a sort of a Polanski descent-into-madness-type movie.” Naomi Watts is attached to star and shooting is expected to start this year.

Nicolas Winding Refn made his directorial debut in 1996 with the violent and dark Danish drug thriller Pusher. The film garnered Refn international acclaim at the age of 25. He collaborated with his Pusher lead, Kim Bodnia, once more for the 1999 film Bleeder. The film succeeded in Denmark, but it didn’t manage to find the international audience that Pusher enjoyed.

For his third feature, Refn made his first English language film Fear X in 2003. It performed poorly at the box office and left Refn in debt. In the next two years, Refn wrote and directed two sequels to Pusher — both fared well with audiences and critics. Before writing and directing the minimalist Viking saga Valhalla Rising, he wrote and directed the controversial Bronson, based on Britain’s most notorious prisoner. In 2011 he was awarded Best Director at the Cannes Film Festival for Drive, starring Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan.

His next feature, Only God Forgives, stars Gosling and will be released later this year.

The crime thriller is set in Thailand and is based on his own script.

Gaspar Noé

Six Shooter, earned him an Academy Award for Best Live Action Short in 2005. His next project was 2008’s In Bruges, starring Colin Son of the Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, and Ralph famous ArFiennes. The hit man-themed dark comedy gentinean earned him an Academy Award nomination artist Luis for Best Original Screenplay. He reteamed Felipe Noé, Gaspar Noé with Farrell again for last year’s Seven Psyis known for chopaths. his graphic depictions of He doesn’t have another film lined up at the violence and moment, but is said to be working on a stage musical with musician Tom Waits. sex and is subsequently associated with the New Honorable Mentions: French Extremity. He made his first feature film in 1998 with I Stand Alone, a nihilistic Derek Cianfrance (Brother Tied, Blue Valenmasterpiece centered on the rage and destine, The Place Beyond the Pines) pair of a fifty year old butcher. His next fea- Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame) ture, Irreversible, was even more controver- Anton Corbijn (Control, The American) sial. The film features a graphic rape and Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre, Jane Eyre) murder scene that left many at the 2002 Jeff Nichols (Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter, Cannes Film Festival disgusted, resulting in Mud) a large number of walkouts. His third and Ramin Bahrani (Man Push Cart, Chop Shop, last film to date is 2008’s Enter the Void. The Goodbye Solo, At Any Price) psychedelic melodrama performed poorly at Lynne Ramsay (Ratcatcher, Morvern Callar, the box office despite generally favorable re- We Need to Talk About Kevin) views.

Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) John Hillcoat (The Proposition, The Road, Gaspar Noé’s next feature will be The Golden Lawless) Suicide, based on a Nancy Jo Sales article of Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo, Never Let the same name. Production has not yet be- Me Go) gun and it is not known when shooting will begin. *Established young directors, famous actors, and debutants have been left off the Martin McDonagh list (such as Paul Thomas Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, Ben Affleck, George Clooney, DaMartin vid Michôd, and Neill Blomkamp).  McDonagh is more wellknown as an Irish playwright, but he has enjoyed success with films as well.

His first foray into film,

Sophomore Efforts to Look Out For in 2013

By Bedram Bararpour IT IS not often that a filmmaker seemingly appears out of nowhere to deliver a mesmerizing feature debut, but when it does happen, many film viewers are left waiting for the director’s sophomore effort. A deeply flawed debut, however, can also show promise for its helmer. Here are five sophomore efforts to look out for in 2013:

not replicate the same kind of buzz that Primer did, it did generate some early positive reviews. The plot remains somewhat of a mystery, but expect the film to contain more of Carruth’s non-linear, abstract approach.

The film hits theaters April 5th.

Oblivion, directed by Joseph Kosinski

Upstream Color, directed by Shane Carruth It has been nearly a decade since Shane Carruth caused quite a stir at Sundance with his debut, Primer. Upstream Color also premiered at Sundance, and although it did

Many were disappointed by Kosinski’s first feature, TRON: Legacy, the long-awaited sequel to the 1982 TRON. Although the film was perhaps overlong and lacking an engaging narrative, Kosinski showed an eye for visual flair. Kosinski’s follow up feature is Oblivion, a science fiction action blockbuster based on Kosinski’s own graphic novel, starring Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, and Olga Kurylenko. The film is set in 2073, years after Earth has been devastated by an alien invasion. Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) is one of the few drone repairmen stationed on Earth, but he begins to question his mission and himself after he rescues a woman from a downed spacecraft. The film goes nationwide April 19th.

Elysium, directed by Neill Blomkamp Neill Blomkamp follows his critically acclaimed debut, District 9, with another allegorical science-fiction action movie. However, this time around Blomkamp has a much larger budget to work with and big-name stars, including Matt Damon and Jodie Foster. Sharlto Copley, the star of District 9, is starring as the villain of the film. The film is set in the year 2159, with the very wealthy living on a space station called Elysium, and everyone else living on an overpopulated Earth. Secretary Rhodes (Jodie Foster) is dedicated to preventing immigration to Elysium, but Max (Matt Damon) takes on a

mission that could bring the two worlds together. The film will be released August 9th.

August: Osage County, directed by John Wells John Wells, better known as a TV and film producer, follows his debut, The Company Men, with August: Osage County, starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Ewan McGregor, and numerous other familiar faces. The film, a play written

by Tracy Letts, is a darkly comedic story set in Oklahoma; it revolves around a family that is brought together by a family crisis.

Expect the film to make an awards-season push due to its star studded cast and Harvey Weinstein’s backing. The film will be released during Oscar season, going wide on November 8th.

Out of the Furnace, directed by Scott Cooper Scott Cooper first appeared on the map with his critically acclaimed Crazy Heart, which earned Jeff Bridges his first Oscar.

Like his first feature, Cooper has assembled a fine cast for Out of the Furnace, including Christian Bale, Zoe Saldana, Woody Harrelson, Willem Dafoe, Casey Affleck, and Forest Whitaker. The film takes place in the Rust Belt and follows two brothers, Russell (Christian Bale) and Rodney (Casey Affleck).

Russell ends up in prison, and Rodney becomes involved with a violent crime ring.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Ridley Scott are two of the film’s many producers. The film will be released in the fall, though no specific date has been mentioned. 

A Cross-section: The Case of Tony Manero

By Nour El Safoury THE CREDIT sequence in Saturday Night Fever (John Badham, 1977) situates Tony Manero, the protagonist, within an overpowering image of Brooklyn, New York.

It creates a particular dynamic between Tony, rhythmically walking down the street, swinging a can of paint, and the city itself.

The juxtaposition of these two elements produces a mood, a state, a visual and aural symphony. As the camera pans then moves down from the Verrazano Bridge, entering Tony's space, it captures his feet walking in time to the beats of the Bee Gees' "Stayin' Alive." Tony's facial expression—vacuous empty—is put in relation to vibrant colors, his moving body, and the energy of the total filmic construction.

In thinking about Tony, it is tempting to contrast him with the character of the flâneur. After all, he is taking a journey through the city streets. In one sense, flânerie is an interpretation of the nature of subjecthood in a modern city—for instance Baudelaire's Paris, or Badham's New York: The flâneur is still on the threshold, of the city as of the bourgeois class. Neither has yet engulfed him; in neither is he at home. He seeks refuge in the crowd….The crowd is the veil through which the familiar city lures the flâneur like a phantasmagoria.1 The flâneur offers a useful analogy through which both to work out the character of Tony Manero, and to interpret the possible significations of Tony within the context of cultural criticism. At the heart of flânerie is a tension—the flâneur is at once a detached observer of city life and an active creator of its image. He is at the center of the city, but also hidden from it. This tension is brought to the surface in the way Tony is presented in the credit sequence. His expression is detached, almost like that of a distant observer who is unengaged, yet his presence signifi-

cantly changes the cityscape as shown on the screen.

When the camera enters his space, Tony starts a rhythm, an invigorating beat, which the crowd seems to follow; particularly the sleek girl who turns Tony away as he attempts to pursue her (the girl in the orange dress). On the surface of it, Tony might seem like a character that wants to be noticed—so distant from the flâneur who wants to observe and not be observed. For one he is dressed in red and saunters loudly down the street. Yet, it is the filmmaker's gaze, and the stylized frame compositions, which give the impression that Tony is a conspicuous star. He is glorified in this sequence. He does not only set the beat, but he is the ultimate interest of the camera eye. In the canted low angle frames, Tony is given a towering status. The increased stylization of the frames makes it seem as if Tony is the creator the space within which the camera now operates—he has created the total image, mood, into which the camera submerges itself gradually.

This space is not a space realistically approached. In a significant way it is still the typical musical genre space where a certain artificiality maintains and creates a distance between the filmic space and the real world.

Before entering Tony's space—the ultimate space of the film—the camera takes time to locate Tony. His space is not distant from the city itself. In the bird's eye view shots in the very first scene of the film, this space is indistinguishable from the rest of the city.

Tony meets the city on its own terms and is fully integrated, hardly noticeable in the urban space, a person that has to be sought after and searched for—a true flâneur.

When the camera does locate him, however, it is sucked into his own world and integrated into his rhythm. It is only as it enters his groove that the frames seem saturated with

colors—drenched in red most prominently— motions, and sounds. Only then does the camera idolize Tony and give him the foreground in its frame compositions. For an admirer of flânerie, such as the camera, the flâneur reigns as king.

The location within which the camera tracks Tony in this sequence could be described as a narrow street between two lines of shops. In fact, this space is associated with the image of two actual bridges—the Brooklyn Bridge, and the Verrazano Bridge.

Conceived as such, the filmic space is hardly at a standstill. Arguably, it is one to whose definition motion is essential. Bridges are usually transitions, in-between spaces. Although motion may or may not be essential to the depiction of the two spaces a bridge connects, motion is essential to the conception of the bridge itself. Tony's space is thus one where motion is the prominent characteristic, as are some of its effects—change, unrest, etc.

Some might interpret this motion to be an inner journey that Tony undertakes, intentionally or unintentionally. To such a reading, Tony is moving as the film progresses from his conflicted teen years to a more mature position. At first, Tony is an adolescent who is still sorting out his values, but then grows up. Indeed, it does seem that Tony is undergoing a moral development of sorts as the story progresses. Nonetheless, it is necessary to note that such journey toward maturation, if existent, is permeated by the city, not solely projected onto its presentation. The credit sequence shows Tony moving through the streets of Bay Ridge. In Saturday Night Fever flânerie does not seem to be an end in itself. The film is not interested in a state where wandering itself is the aim. Flânerie is associated with adolescence: Tony is 19 years old when the film opens.

The allure of Tony seems to be his knowledge of how to inhabit the tension, conflict, at the center of flânerie typically conceived. Tony inhabits a place of constant ebb and flow because he meets the city on its own terms. The chthonic elements of the

city have infiltrated his psyche and left their impressions on him. An electric train passes by at a high speed above the heads of the people below—eating, walking and talking.

The camera pans and moves down, showing a woman working so close to a hot oven, baking pizzas. This city is an ideal place to situate the search for one's identity, values—the typical adolescent turbulent quest—because it mimics such internal state in its own qualities as a place. Although, the journey of the film might be interpreted as one that takes place primarily within Tony who by the end comes of age, it is also one that takes place on a more of a public plane.

Tony's relationship to the people on the street—the crowd—could be seen as one of selling and buying, a commercial exchange. Tony is first introduced through the act of window shopping. He is a buyer: he buys two slices of pizza, he also puts a down payment on a blue shirt. In this sequence, he is also a seller. As he walks down the street he himself is looking for a buyer. The exchange between Tony and the girl in the pale salmon-colored dress conveys Tony's function as a salesman. He is selling his sexual appeal, his masculinity, his sexual interest. The allure of the crowd, which to Walter Benjamin in the quotation above acted like the phantasmagoria, becomes in Saturday Night Fever akin to the illusion surrounding market exchange.

In Badham's film, the flâneur becomes a seller and a buyer to whom the street is a marketplace. The excitement he feels when putting a five dollar down payment on the blue shirt and not taking a receipt, is the same as that which he feels when pursuing the girl in the pale salmon-colored dress, trying his luck. It is the uncertainty of the exchange that lures Tony to the crowd and to the constantly changing city. However, Tony's relationship to the crowd defies any all-inclusive, clear-cut definition. Although he might be seen as selling his sexuality, he is not a male prostitute: he is not a pure commodity. He cannot be a seller in a pure sense. There is some ambiguity surrounding

his social relationships in this sequence where Tony is no longer the distant observer of city life but trades in his own wandering for benefits, material or otherwise.

In being permeated by the city, Tony's experience gains its full meaning only in relation to it. As such, it seems that the interaction of a subject with the modern city is a theme at the heart of the Tony Manero character. The film creates a certain image of such interaction. It is one where ambiguity, with its loose definitions of boundaries, is almost caught at a standstill as Tony struts down the streets of Bay Ridge. Saturday Night Fever not only creates an image of the ambiguous but also suggests that within this state of being, where clear definitions crumble causing a state of unrest, the creative force—the force which creates the new— is necessary to the life of the modern subject. Perhaps one positive claim that applies to Tony Manero in some clear sense is that he is a fashion dandy. Saturday Night Fever collapses both ambiguity in social relations and dandyism into one unit—Tony Manero.

Tony is the creative type: in his dandyism he creates his self-image, in his dance routines he creates new conceptions of motion. In being on the threshold, he finds his creative drive and discovers his home: the creative arena, the dance floor. In his dandyism he uses even the economy as part of his creative resources.

As Tony enters the hardware store, he takes off his leather jacket and puts on a uniform coat. He starts to engage in extensive dialogue, concretizing his experience— compared to the symphony of visual stimuli in the previous sequence, words have a relatively more defining role. Away from the streets, in almost any other space, Tony is easily defined through a role that in the film does not apply to him only—as a dancer, a son, an employee, etc. But he is the only character close to a flâneur in this film. His relation to the city makes him unique. Tony is an exploration of the modern subject in cityscapes. Contrasting him to the flâneur shows that he falls within a larger trend. His journey is that of the whole class of city in-

habitants who are constantly working out their identity as subjects in modernity. City inhabitants can most easily identify with Tony who is intricately tied to his city, part of him caught up in the flux, ever changing as the city itself changes, and another the distant observing gaze looking at the city with creative wonder and recording its motions.

His demeanor as he walks down the street is an image of this. This sequence in its totality gives a sense of implosion. A sense of different elements coming together in a very intense way: the vibrant colors, the loud disco music, the animated movement, etc. Something is revealed to the viewer about the protagonist as he walks down the street.

Saturday Night Fever is purposefully injecting itself within a larger social dialogue and arguably offering an attempt at a resolution, making the analogy to the flâneur useful while not dismissing any differences that might exist between Tony and the character of the flâneur as a literary construct.

Perhaps it is necessary to point out that disco music, the music genre to which the Bee Gees tracks played in the film belong, has often been associated, in the 1970s most prominently, with social movements that questioned gender constructions. The music which is associated with Tony is itself one that is exploring and integrating itself into a larger social dialogue. Disco music is often considered to have grown out of the 1969 Stonewall riots and has thus been associated in its beginning with the gay subculture.

In the film, however, one feature of disco culture is tamped down through the narrative of a straight man, and as it is commodified through the camera's lens another feature is put in line with the dominant culture—it is a product no longer hostile to the regime. One can argue whether this is an attempt at a resolution, or if it were such whether it is successful. Yet, such arguments are beyond the scope of this paper.

The interest in referring to them here, however, is to show that Saturday Night Fever is not a film that falls easily under the banner of art for the sake of itself. On the one hand, its space is artificial enough, styl-

ized enough, to support an argument claiming that the film's relation to reality is not one characterized by too much fidelity. Insofar as the filmic space reflects Tony's character, and helps develop it by providing him with moments of self-reflexivity—this particular relationship to Tony, a single individual—it cannot be the ‘real world.’ Yet on the other, it unpacks a genuine experience of one subject in a modern city. In this capacity it is a significant part of 'reality.' The bone structure of this relationship can be a subject of cultural, social, historical inquiry.

Situating Tony within a social trajectory— like that of the flâneur—is thus necessary in understanding a part of his character's significance. 

1Walter Benjamin," Paris, Capital of the Nineteenth Centu-

ry," Reflections: essays, aphorisms, autobiographical writings, ed. Peter Demetz (New York : Schocken Books, 1986) 156.

An Animated Discussion

By Elizabeth Mattson ANIMATION IS a method of filmmaking that is often overlooked, but can have amazing results. It has long had to deal with the stigma of being considered a medium suited only to childish, thoughtless films with cheap plots and poor writing, but anyone with enough familiarity can tell you that this impression is unwarranted. It is true that a certain amount of realism is essentially sacrificed, but the sheer freedom of filmmakers to explore impossible situations and craft new worlds that they control entirely can make up for it in skilled hands. Although most American animated films are family films, the medium offers opportunities for almost unlimited creativity and true classics.

Traditional hand-drawn animation is

what most people think of when they hear the word “cartoons.” This is the style that gives the impression of a drawing come to life, the form of animation used by Looney Tunes, Studio Ghibli, Don Bluth, the majority of the Disney Animated Canon, and countless other creators and studios. It is an extremely versatile style, which can be used to invoke a variety of emotions. From dynamic, hilarious slapstick violence in Tom & Jerry shorts to beautiful scenes of romance in Beauty and the Beast to violence and horror in AKIRA, hand-drawn animation is capable of setting as many tones as a static drawing is. Unfortunately, due to costs and practicality this method of animation is being largely abandoned by the film world at large. However, new techniques such as flash animation are being used to preserve the aesthetic in many animated television series.

“Although most American animated films are family films, the medium offers opportunities for almost unlimited creativity and true classics.”

The new dominant form of animation is CGI. This gives movies a “3D”-ish look, as though characters are physically being filmed rather than drawings. The movies of Pixar, the majority of DreamWorks Animation’s catalogue, and most other modern animated film use this style. This medium has come a long way in a short time. Originally, CGI had a stiff, un-detailed, plasticky look so distracting that the first few CGI films tended to avoid humans for fear of looking creepy and relied in the strength of their stories and scripts rather than their cinematog-

raphy. Nowadays, technology has improved so much that modern CGI films such as Toy Story 3 or How to Train Your Dragon have strikingly beautiful visuals and charming, albeit stylized, characters. This great improvement, which will only continue with improved technology as well as everdecreasing costs, has made CGI the current animation technique of choice for most of Hollywood.

Other, less popular techniques can also be used to excellent effect. The jerky movements and sculpted look of stopmotion lends itself well to movies looking for a creepy aesthetic, such as the animated features of Laika, Inc or Tim Burton. Clay animation is a more specific form of stop motion, which studios such as Aardman use for a fun, childish, playful aesthetic. Other forms of animation seek to look as true to life as possible, which can backfire if a cartoony look clashes oddly with realistic movements. Motion capture, where sensors trace the movements of actors that will be applied to CGI characters, can run into this problem. However, the technique is used best when mixed with live action to create fanta-

sy creatures interacting with human actors.

This is what created Lord of the Rings’ fantastic Gollum and the Na’vi of Avatar. There are many methods of animation that can be used to create different moods, aesthetics, and worlds. Animation is hard to pull off well, but when used properly the results can be magical. 

So That Others Might Live and Be Free: Thoughts on How to Survive a Plague

By Alessandra Bautze DAVID FRANCE’S recent documentary, How to Survive a Plague (2012) depicts the early years of the AIDS crisis through the eyes of activists from ACT UP New York and later the Treatment Action Group (TAG). It is carved from archival footage in which the filmmaker, a member of the gay community, constructs a compelling story through editing and the juxtaposition of this archival footage with contemporary interviews, creating an unparalleled sense of intimacy.

stead, they took matters into their own hands. They became not only activists, but also scientists and policy makers. There are moments of empowerment, but also quiet moments of reflection on illness, loss, and life. Filmmaker David France, who witnessed these events, constructs a deeply moving account of this period in history through the arrangement, through editing, of archival footage shot by others, and the juxtaposition of this with interviews.

How to Survive a Plague has two main features. First, it consists of archival footage arranged in such a way that it becomes a deeply personal account of the early years of the AIDS crisis. It goes so deep into the community—into large, boisterous meetings and into small, quiet apartments— that it feels like an ethnography of 1980s Greenwich Village, “the epicenter” of the epidemic in which these individuals were activists, patients and all too often pariahs. Secondly, it juxtaposes these archival accounts with contemporary interviews from activists, the majority of whom thought that they would not be alive today, and thus had to shape a whole new future for themselves. No interviewee is detached from the events; even the physicians and scientists interviewed were there fighting beside their HIV-positive counterparts, as in the case of Dr. Barbara Starrett and Dr. Iris Long. The arresting motto of ACT UP, “Silence = Death,” appears for the first time on a sign held by a protestor at the first demonstration profiled in the film. The film dissolves from this sign to the title of the film, establishing the theme of nonviolent resistance that runs throughout the film. The motto is symbolic when examining a film such as this. These individuals, forced to become activists when faced with the unimaginable, did not resign themselves to a brief life of silence and suffering. In-

The speakers are complex, nuanced characters that one follows throughout the film, such as Peter Staley and Bob Rafsky.

In the case of Staley, one sees his fast-paced arrests and demonstrations, but also his eloquent speeches that arouse people to action. One sees how Rafsky’s life as an activist intersects with his family life; he came out in his forties and has embraced his new role as an AIDS activist wholeheartedly. In one scene, he speaks at an ACT UP meeting, people cheer, and then the music that consistently accompanies the segments about him begins to play before the scene transitions to his tranquil home, set apart from the chaos. With the advent of the camcorder, viewers see actual home movies of his birthdays celebrated with his ex-wife and daughter, which serve as yet another reminder of the fragility of life and the significance of time. Viewers see him playing with his joyful and innocent daughter. (When contrasted with the image of his tearful daughter in his ex-wife’s arms at his funeral, these images take on a new poignancy.)

These visuals create a unique sense of intimacy, shaped by David France indirectly through cinematography or directly through editing.

David France plays a complex, multifaceted and multi-layered role in the construction of How to Survive a Plague. He is

both a filmmaker and a member of the gay community. France does not explicitly state his background in the film (indeed, he never speaks at all), and thus it would be all too easy to overlook his historical involvement in the movement. He may not be invisible, and yet one would not know of his prior involvement with ACT UP without doing further research. France writes, however: I first began covering the AIDS epidemic in the very early months of the epidemic, before it was even given a name. I began my career, in fact, as a response to the epidemic. All gay men had roles to play in the crisis, whether we liked it or not…When AIDS activism took foot, I wrote the first story about ACT UP for the Village Voice, and covered most of the events that I've included in my film.

Deep in the backgrounds of these scenes, there I am pressed against the walls, filling my notepads. (How to Survive a Plague Press Notes, “Director’s Statement”)

images forms a cohesive story from 700 hours of footage shot by 30 individuals. Editing could even be considered a sort of metaphorical “rhetoric.” The first scene of the film is a montage sequence showing dying patients as heart-rending music plays. This plays to viewers’ emotions immediately and sets up the devastating context of the events of the film. This passivity and helplessness is immediately contrasted with footage of an ACT UP meeting in which members plan for a demonstration and then the demonstration itself, which comes before the title sequence of the film. Members link arms and stand in solidarity, and then there is a cut to police officers in riot gear approaching: a confrontation is going to ensure. There is a contagious energy as the protestors are dragged away and arrested. This dichotomy manifests itself throughout the film. For example, much later in the film, the frenetic pace of demonstrations is intercut with quiet reflections as people spread the ashes of their loved ones on the White House lawn.

The film expertly combines the frenetic pace of some of the events with quiet moments of reflection to sufficiently capture the full spectrum of emotions associated with the AIDS crisis. At the very end of the film, each activist who has been interviewed is revealed in a sequence of shots. Each is alive and shown to be older. Peter Staley becomes emotional, saying “…like any war, you wonder why you came home.” Again, background music is intended to evoke pathos.

This is a clear sign of filmmaker interference through editing and a lack of subjectivity in the presentation of these interviewees. It is not, however, manipulative in a negative way. It is utterly compelling and inspiring to see the work of ACT UP and TAG activists manifest itself in the faces of these men, who survived an epidemic against all odds.

As one can see from the depictions of Staley and Rafsky, France re-creates the sense of intimacy that he experienced when he was a journalist in the same room with these activists. The unconventional construction of the film accentuates this feeling.

In speaking about the construction of the film from disparate video accounts, France says, “Ultimately, I compiled a tape trove of 700 hours from 30 independent shooters or their estates. And in that haystack was a tightly focused story on a half-dozen activists over an epic ten-year period.” He says, in an interview with Interview Magazine, “So that's the story I wanted to tell, how we as a community changed the epidemic.” Through the use of the word “we,” one can see that he identifies with the this community of activCinematography, albeit a feature that ists, thus shaping his perspective as a is not David France’s own, lends a sense of filmmaker, as well as his creative decisions, communion with the activists, allowing viewsuch as those involved in editing and cineers to further identify with their struggles, matography. as previously mentioned. When Bob Rafsky, Editing is of the utmost importance in his face covered in lesions caused by Kapothis film, for the juxtaposition of cinematic si’s sarcoma, speaks at the political funeral

for fellow activist Mark Fisher, the camera never wavers and he is filmed at a close-up in duration. Audiences are called to not only identify with his grief, but to weigh the human cost of government inaction in the fight against AIDS. Shortly after this scene, a group of four men gather in one of their homes, just as they did in the very beginning of the film after the title sequence.

Again, the “archival cinematographers” create a sense of intimacy; indeed, a friend of the men likely shot this casual footage. One feels as if they are in the living rooms of these men, listening to them describe their greatest fears and desires for their uncertain futures. In moments like these, it is authenticity, rather than subjectivity or objectivity, which matters.

How to Survive a Plague is a triumphant and empowering creative effort. Not only is it the best documentary that I have seen this year, but it is the most powerful and most strangely exhilarating documentary that I have seen in recent memory, showcasing the efforts of a group of individuals, united in anger and with a clarity of vision, who take on forces external to themselves and ultimately succeed in turning HIV?AIDS from a death sentence to a treatable condition, shaping the course of not only their own lives, but the lives of those to come. The final lines of the movie have stayed with me. Peter Staley, an activist profiled in the film, reads the words of Vito Russo, a fellow activist: “Someday, the AIDS crisis will be over. And there will be a people alive on this Earth—gay people and straight people, men and women, black and white—who will hear the story that once there was a terrible disease, and that a brave group of people stood up and fought and, in some cases died, so that others might ive and be free.”  Adapted from “Bill Nichols and How to Survive a Plague: Ethical Decisions, Modes of Representa tion, and Intimacy,” also by Alessandra Bautze.

Just Loving the Art

By Jessica Terekhov THERE IS the necessity in every relationship for objectification. It becomes essential, at some point, to remove the filter and reevaluate the scene. Shift perspective, maybe.

Such was my trial late one Monday last fall – our trial, since you can’t love film without feeling loved back. The predicament had come during dinner, from a friend. It was a casual remark in the spirit of conversation about having watched You Can’t Take It with You. Having watched it, and not liked it. My cheeks had paled, my salad had wilted, and now I brooded, three lonely hours later, over half-finished homework. Reality is tricky to edit, so I suffered through hopeless reruns of the harrowing confession.

Then the context inevitably broadened. Why had I enjoyed the film? Why was I the constant exception in preferring the 30s? What was I missing?

My appreciation for film began with the ‘42 icon, Casablanca. While I wouldn’t admit to liking it, I did become intrigued.

Gilda…The Philadelphia Story…His Girl Friday…Vertigo: fast forward several years, and I hold Hitchcock and Wilder and Capra in official reverence. It only follows that challenging Capra’s 1938 Best Picture/ Director win strikes me close to the heart. You Can’t Take It with You is clever, funny, and tactful in a way the 70s never understood.

It was more

than a Capra thing, I realized in a distracted stare at my wall, over the Hitchcock and Garbo books on my shelf. It was an objection to how cinema had evolved. The 70s were the broken conventions of Hollywood’s Golden Age during the 30s and 40s, and I invariably stood on the side of the past.

There was a subtlety and artfulness to classic film that had been sacrificed, I felt, in a revision of filmmaking.

Cut to a morning in November, on the steps up to Gilman with the friend of before.

The sting of two weeks ago has since been properly assuaged by Alfred Hitchcock and Grand Hotel. We talk on the way to class, and she concedes the genius of the Wilder/ Chandler screenplay for Double Indemnity. I face her with the excitement and gratitude of cinematic camaraderie, at long last.

Later that week—on her recommendation and against my better judgment—I watched several classics I had naturally avoided, namely, Network and Annie Hall.

I liked Annie Hall. 

U de g aduate Fil Co fe e e Septe

e

8th,

JHU Ho ewood Ca pus

il

o fe e ehopki s

.o g

Visit ou we site fo details o how to apply to e o e a speake .

E ail us at il . o fe e e.athopki s@g ail. o with a y uesio s.

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? ‘What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference?

What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? ‘What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s your Frame of Reference? What’s

2013