SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
Table Of Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Gender Equality- Carina Oeystilae Race-casting- Elize Utby Fashion- Ross Ramos Movie mistakes- Bethany Gorfu The Great Gatsby- Gerardo Ramirez History/Timeline of film- Diana Segovia Music- Violet Dvorin
LEAKED: Jennifer Lawrence Got American “Hustled” In Sony Deal In the latest leaked Sony emails, it is revealed that Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams were paid less than their male costars in 2013's "American Hustle," which was co-financed by Sony arm Columbia Pictures. Lawrence and Adams earned less than their male costars although both actresses were nominated for Oscars for their roles in the film. Director David O'Russell and actors Bradley Cooper, Christian Bale, and Jeremy Renner all earned more on the movie's back-end compensation than the female actresses in the movie. In a Sony email unearthed by The Daily Beast from December 2013, Andrew Gumpert, president of business affairs for Columbia Pictures, wrote to Sony co chair Amy Pascal and Doug Belgrad, president of SPE Motion Picture Group, about the back-end compensation — known as "points" — that each actor would receive after the movie's release: “Got a steve warren/gretchen rush call that it's unfair the male actors get 9% in the pool and jennifer is only at 7pts. You may recall Jennifer was at 5 (Amy was and is at 7) and WE wanted in 2 extra points for Jennifer to get her up to 7. If anyone needs to top Jennifer up it’s Megan [producer Megan Ellison]. BUT I think Amy and Jennifer are tied so upping JL, ups AA. Gumpert added: "The current talent deals are: O'Russell: 9%; Cooper: 9%; Bale: 9%; Renner: 9%; Lawrence: 7%; Adams: 7%.” Pascal's email response to the news of Lawrence's making less than her male colleagues was "there is truth here." This despite the fact that "Hustle" was approved after "The Hunger Games," which starred Lawrence, became a hit, The Daily Beast points out. "American Hustle" went on to earn over $251 million worldwide, but "The Hunger Games" is a billion-dollar franchise with Lawrence at the center. While it's unknown what Lawrence earned up front for "Hustle," the 24-year-old took home $10 million for the second "Hunger Games" installment, "Catching Fire." The Hollywood Reporter notes that the figure "is a combination of salary, bonuses, and escalators." The recent leaks have also revealed the bigger issue of a major pay gap between male and female Sony staffers. According to a spreadsheet listing top exec salaries, Hannah Minghella, who serves as co-president of production at Columbia Pictures, makes about $1 million less per year ($1.5
million) than her male counterpart with the same job, Columbia Pictures co-president of production Michael De Luca ($2.4 million). According to the spreadsheet, which lists the salaries of 6,000 employees, 17 of the employees were making $1 million or more, but only one of those was a woman. The spreadsheet also showed that the top salaried Sony executives were 88% white and 94% male. The leaks are the latest in a series by a mysterious group calling itself the "Guardians of Peace." The group has been demanding Sony not release the coming comedy "The Interview," which has also been denounced by North Korea.
Lawrence and Adams earned less than their male costars on the back end of the Oscar-nominated "Hustle." Francois Duhamel/Columbia Pictures Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/jennifer-lawrence-paid-less-than-male-co-stars-2014-12
Hollywood 'race casting': what the industry is getting wrong about diversity An article in trade publication Deadline argued that white actors were now at a disadvantage compared to ethnic minority peers. That’s complete nonsense
And after the success of Fox’s Empire, it makes commercial sense to continue the ‘trend’ of featuring more people of color on television screens. Photograph: 20th Century Fox/Everett Wednesday 25 March 2015 16.12 EDTLast modified on Tuesday 5 September 2017 16.48 EDT There’s no such thing as too much of a good thing, at least when it comes to diversifying media. Hollywood remains light years behind the ethnographic makeup of the US and industry leaders have, for years, used a variety of different excuses to hide their money-hungry, “safe” and downright racist decisions in casting actors of color for film and television roles. The number of television roles for actors of color dropped dramatically over the last 15 years and it was not because of the various reasons given by Hollywood executives. Change is swift, but it’s also most likely not as prominent as we imagine. The numbers from the 2015 diversity report on Hollywood, entitled Flipping the Script – a product of UCLA’s Ralph Bunche Center for African American Studies – are only marginally better than previous years.
What to watch: your definitive TV guide for fall 201
Consistent with previous reports, there is a major discrepancy between the actual population within the US and the representation of that population on TV. Minorities account for more than 40% of the US population and yet they are significantly underrepresented in the television industries. According to the report, minorities remain underrepresented nearly six to one in broadcast scripted leads and nearly two to one among cable scripted leads. The numbers for series creators is even worse. Minorities are underrepresented at greater than six to one among the creators of broadcast shows, greater than three to one among the creators of cable scripted shows, and greater than seven to one for creators of digital platform and syndicated shows. The demographics show that a greater percentage of black people in particular watch and engage with television than white audiences. According to a 2013 report from Nielsen, African Americans are more “aggressive consumers” of media. For example: “Blacks watch more television (37%), make more shopping trips (eight), purchase more ethnic beauty and grooming products (nine times more),” which translates to the two largest forces in television creation: numbers and advertisers. Despite those strong numbers and clear evidence, Hollywood insisted on practicing the same forms of structural racism as they have in the past. However, Hollywood is a business at its core, and business, at least in terms of successes with minority leads and shows, is good. Longer running shows, like Shonda Rhimes’s Scandal and Grey’s Anatomy, as well as cable hits like The Walking Dead demonstrate a willingness from audiences to continue watching diverse shows. And a fter the success of Fox’s Empire, as well as smaller successes with ABC’s Fresh Off the Boat, How to Get Away With Murder, and Black-ish, it makes commercial sense to continue the “trend” of featuring more people of color on television screens. But Nellie Andreeva’s article in Deadline suggests a rapid, almost misguided sense of action on Hollywood’s part and an underlying premise of “affirmative action”-type policies at work within Hollywood. Andreeva wrote: “Instead of opening the field for actors of any race to compete for any role in a color-blind manner, there has been a significant number of parts designated as ethnic this year, making them off-limits for Caucasian actors, some agents signal.”
The tone of Andreeva’s article suggests that this is a wrong practice. And yet it also negates mentioning this same practice had routinely been employed by Hollywood for years, but in exclusion of people of color. “From the earliest days of the industry, white males have dominated the plum positions in front of and behind the camera, thereby marginalizing women and minorities in the creative process by which a nation circulates popular stories about itself,” wrote Darnell Hunt, head of UCLA’s Ralph Bunche Center.
According to Andreeva, one year of targeted change and representation suggests those in charge have gone too far. Andreeva continues: “Many pilot characters this year were listed as open to all ethnicities, but when reps would call to inquire about an actor submission, they frequently have been told that only non-white actors would be considered. “Basically 50% of the roles in a pilot have to be ethnic, and the mandate goes all the way down to guest parts,” one talent representative said. Advertisement Rather than state facts, Andreeva’s scathing takeaway from the 2014-2015 television season, as well as the current pilot season casting process gave greater weight to the opinions of disgruntled casting directors. Readers can’t know for certain if their words are true or if they are upset that their legion of subpar actors who previously slipped into roles on broadcast, cable, and online television shows could no longer do so at the frequency of the past. But if TV executives are actually, finally paying attention to audiences, this new system of change will soon become the norm, one in which casting directors defer to what people actually want and respond to and not discriminatory exclusions. Andreeva’s article suggests that rather than restrict minority actors to roles that regularly represented uniquely minority experiences (the underlying trend of the most recent television season with shows such as Black-ish and Fresh Off the Boat), networks instead aim to include minority actors in a broad array of shows and characters. Which, obviously. Why wouldn’t they? Compared to past discriminatory hiring practices, incorporating more minority representation on television just makes more business sense. As the Flipping the Script report notes: “Median 18-49 viewer ratings (as well as most median household ratings among whites, blacks and Latinos) peaked for broadcast and cable shows that at least match the minority share of the population in terms of overall cast diversity.” Past reports from the Bunche Center show similar statistics. In 2013, they reported that, “during the 2011-12 season median household ratings were highest among cable television shows with casts that were from 31% to 40% minority (0.88 ratings points).” And in contrast to those numbers, “ratings were lowest among shows with casts that were 10% minority or less (0.39 ratings points)”. To increase ratings in an increasingly diversified field of options for entertainment consumption (the internet, video games, reality television shows), it would be foolish to ignore facts and simply play by the same rules which don’t work in the 21st century. This is not merely a case of the pendulum swinging, “a bit too far in the opposite direction,” as Andreeva wrote. Important change is often radical, but it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. In order to greater diversify television to satisfy both the storytelling process and the bottom line of ratings, studio heads are finally waking up. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2015/mar/25/deadlines-race-casti ng-article-tvs-diversity-wrong
10 Ridiculous Movie Mistakes Errors in 'Pulp Fiction,' 'Jurassic Park' and more great films Source: Rolling Stone
Virtually any movie, even a great one, can fall victim to continuity errors and factual inaccuracies. In most cases, these mistakes go unnoticed by the public. But some are so glaringly obvious and downright ridiculous it's a miracle they survived the editing process. Here are ten such examples. 10. Independence Day (1996) During David's tirade in Area 51, where he bemoans the fate of the planet and rails against deforestation and pollution, h e drunkenly knocks over a bin that's labeled with the words "Art Dept." Either the top secret installation has its own stable of designers, or a set dresser accidentally left his garbage can behind. Jeff Goldblum as David Levinson in 'Independence Day.' Mary Evans/Ronald Grant/Everett Collection
9. The Goonies (1985) At the end of the film, Data tells a reporter the scariest part of his adventure was battling a giant octopus. Problem is, that scene was deleted from the theatrical release and didn't see the light of day until the Disney Channel began airing the movie in the 1990s. Is this picture better off without the scene?
Probably. Should the reference have been removed from the final cut? Definitely. Jeff Cohen, Sean Astin, Corey Feldman and Jonathan Ke Quan as Chunk, Mikey, Mouth and Data in 'The Goonies.'Warner Bros/Courtesy Everett Collection 8. Commando (1985) Commando was a commercial success that further established Arnold Schwarzenegger as an action hero, but this flick has so many mistakes we lost count. Here, John Matrix's Porsche, which was badly damaged while chasing down Sully, magically fixes itself from one scene to another. It's the mother of all continuity errors – and a neat trick to boot. If only the banged-up Chevy in our driveway could do that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=203_o0V5Yy0
7. Gladiator (2000) During the re-enactment of the Battle of Carthage, a chariot hits a wall and flips over, revealing a gas canister hidden in the back. The Romans were responsible for many technological advances, from roads to aqueducts. But as far as we know, gas propulsion wasn't among them.
'Gladiator.' Universal/Getty Images
Russell Crowe as Maximus in
6. Braveheart (1995) Eagle-eyed fans of Mel Gibson's historical drama know there are flubs here ranging from crew members caught on camera to floppy, rubber weapons. But the appearance of a white van during a battle scene is one of the most egregious. Look for the vehicle in the lower left as a group of pikemen make their charge. Just goes to show – they may take our lives, but they'll never take our Ford Transit! Mel Gibson as William Wallace in 'Braveheart.' 20th Century-Fox/Getty Images 5. Pulp Fiction (1994) Tarantino may be a perfectionist, but there's an error in the apartment scene when Jules and Vincent escape a hail of bullets fired at point-blank range. Look closely behind the hitmen and you'll notice bullet holes on the wall before any shots are actually fired. This miraculous event leads Jules to an epiphany about his life as a contract killer, but a mistake of this magnitude robs the scene of its power.
4. North By Northwest (1959) This spy thriller is considered one of Hitchcock's best, but it's also known for this classic gaffe, where a boy covers his ears moments before a gunshot rings out in the Mount
Rushmore cafeteria (look for him on the right as Eve threatens Roger). Critics speculate the boy must have known e xactly when to protect his ears after enduring previous takes.
3. Jurassic Park (1993) In this scene, programmer turned thief Dennis Nedry appears to be chatting with an accomplice on his computer via a live feed. But the workstation clearly shows he's speaking to a pre-recorded video instead. We expected more from the man responsible for designing J urassic Park's computer systems.
2. Django Unchained (2012) The titular hero of Tarantino's revenge fantasy, which is set in antebellum 1858, wears a nifty pair of sunglasses throughout a significant portion of the film. Shades have been around since the 12th century, when they were invented in China. But they weren't introduced in the U.S. until 1929, after Sam Foster first sold them from a Woolworth on the Atlantic City boardwalk. Anyone feel brave enough to apprise Django of that fact? Didn't think so. Christoph Waltz and Jamie Foxx as Schultz and Django in 'Django Unchained.' 2012 The Weinstein Company
1. T3: Rise of the Machines (2003) The third entry in the Terminator franchise, which was directed by Jonathan Mostow and released in '03, is teeming with errors. One of the most noticeable is when the identifying number on John Connor's getaway Cessna 172 Skyhawk mysteriously changes. The leader of the human resistance should have known better than to trust a machine like that.
The 5 Most Ridiculous Things About ‘The Great Gatsby,’ Old Sport
Opening a bit bigger than expected this past weekend and getting ready to explode confetti over crowds at Cannes later this week, Baz Luhrmann’s “The Great Gatsby,” starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby, Carey Mulligan as Daisy and Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway, is totally ridiculous. It’s a rococo doodle, one full of flash and dazzle and sparkle, but empty inside, which would be an apt metaphor for the titular character if Luhrmann would slow down long enough to establish such things (even if he did bother to try to the make the connection, it would probably be besieged by schizophrenic cutting and accompanied by a Jay-Z song). In fact, it was something of a chore to narrow down the list of the most ridiculous things about “The Great Gatsby” to just five. We could go on and on all day. Oh, and spoiler warning old sport. While we seem to be ragging on “The Great Gatsby” pretty hard (read our review here), it is probably worth seeing, if only to join in the discussion (the title sequence is pretty cool, honestly, and there are sporadic moments of genuine wonderment). And after you watch it, please, come
back, and tell us if we’re totally off-the-mark or if we’re forgetting some things even more worthy of dissection. Onward…..
1. “Old Sport” Is Not A Catchphrase Leonardo DiCaprio says “old sport.” A lot. It pretty much serves as a suffix to almost everything else he says. Yes, it’s a part of the novel and yes it says something about his character – a cultivated affect that he stole from someone whose wealth was actually a more intrinsic part of their person – but after the big reveal about where it came from (which goes over about as well as that episode of “Lost” where you find out why Desmond calls everyone “brother”), the amount of “old sport”s could have been diminished significantly. It is not. Repetition is part of the Baz Luhrmann playbook – from the shot of the sooty billboard to the phrase “old sport” to that damn Lana Del Rey song (of which there are a few different versions) – one that is just as tired as hearing Leonardo DiCaprio utter the same phrase ad infinitum. And for a movie that is already wildly one-dimensional in terms of its characters, saddling Gatsby with a catchphrase
doesn’t help. Remember when Jeremy Renner couldn’t stop saying “chems” in “The Bourne Legacy“? It’s like that, but about ten thousand, glitter-covered times worse, and at least Aaron Cross needed those pills.
2. The (Broken) Framing Device Admittedly, the first hour of “The Great Gatsby” is its most breathlessly entertaining, at least in a sort of high-off-the-exhaust-fumes-at-a-monster-truck-rally kind of way. But that first hour is marred, almost immediately, by the god-awful, wholly invented framing device of Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), institutionalized (for what exactly? Alcoholism? Depression? Over-acting?) and telling his story to a sympathetic shrink. Not only does this awkwardly position Maguire as the lead, without his character ever driving the story forward in any real way (he’s totally devoid of agency or discernible goals), but it’s also boring and totally dull, especially since most of this “institutionalized time” stuff takes place in the snowy winter, far
from the sweltering setting of the rest of the movie. This highly unoriginal framing device (ironic, considering it’s being used to tackle what many consider one of the finest pieces of American writing) might be the worst bit of gilding an already overly shellacked lily, causing an overlong, bloated monstrosity to be even more cumbersomely ornate.
3. The Editing For someone who seems to have such a firm grip on what they want to achieve, visually, Luhrmann seems totally unconfident when it comes to maintaining those visuals onscreen for more than a few seconds at a time. There are examples throughout “The Great Gatsby” of this, but an early (and notable) standout is when the camera is glacially tracking down a dinner table where all our characters are seated. The shot is from above and is meant to both establish the geography of where everyone is seated as well as reinstate the kind of over-the-top lavishness that the Buchanans are surrounded by everyday. We should have been given the chance to luxuriate in this moment, but instead, Luhrmann chooses to cut around to various conversations going on at the table, so quickly that you’re never able to latch onto any part of the conversation,
but just long enough to disrupt the visual flow and make the whole scene feel wobbly and unbalanced. “The Great Gatsby” is full of moments like this, chockablock with things that Luhrmann just shouldn’t be doing in 3D, like excessive whip-pans (which give off a strobing effect), too many dissolves and constantly moving on to the next camera angle without a moment to take in all three dimensions. Had the movie come out at Christmas like it was originally supposed to, maybe these moments would have been cut down; as it stands, the movie feels like it’s been fiddled with and fussed over too much (something that could explain his lack of commitment to the images). Anyone baking cookies knows that too much time in the oven is never a good thing.
4. The Tonal Wonkiness Every movie Baz Luhrmann does is a tonal high-wire act, where extreme silliness is often shoved right next door to dour melodrama (and vice versa). Sometimes this works beautifully, as in the case of “Moulin Rouge!,” where camp excess gingerly gave way to true heartbreak, amplifying both emotions tenfold. When Baz’s tonal ping-pong game doesn’t work, though, you get things like the first hour of “Australia” or, even more disastrously, “The Great Gatsby.” The story of “The Great Gatsby” is a tragedy, we all know this going in, but Luhrmann still throws
screwball comedy (particularly the first meet-cute between Gatsby and Daisy) in at every conceivable turn, which seems teleported in from a different movie. Perhaps most tellingly, the story is set up as an exposé on the emptiness and frivolity of Jazz Age life, and then for the next two-and-a-half hours, Luhrmann luxuriates in it, blissfully unaware he’s failing at the very goal set out by our narrator, Nick. Luhrmann can’t quite seem to distinguish which kind of story he’s telling or even what he wants to say about the era exactly, but hopes if he puts enough razmatazz on screen, it won’t matter.
5. The Writing Is Literally On The Screen An offshoot of the horrible framing devices is that Maguire is narrating the movie and also writing about the movie. Since Luhrmann must indulge in both, we get film noir-y voice over, but we also see him write the story; at first its handwritten and then later it’s typed out, with massive chunks of text cluttering the frame. Either we should have heard the narration or we should have read the story, but not both, and not at the same time. But perhaps most curiously, this idea of tossing phrases up on screen is used very intermittently in a (lack-of) rhythm that’s jarring (and frankly, pretty amateur), taking viewers out of the experience, instead of drawing them further in. It’s another sign of a filmmaker seemingly not confident with a movie already stacked with stars, in 3D, and with an A-list soundtrack. By the end, it’s literally snowing letters, almost as if Baz has just given up and is hoping that something will resonate.
There are, of course, other totally ridiculous things in “The Great Gatsby,” from the soundtrack itself (the completely out-of-place will.i.am song in the middle of a jazz-era party is just one of many instances where things just don’t mesh) to the visuals, that are way over the top and add layer upon layer of distracting distance between the viewer and the emotional center of the movie (and what’s worse – the 3D looks awful). Then there are the thinly drawn characters (Carey Mulligan deserved better) and much more. Are we being too hard on the movie? What irked you? http://www.indiewire.com/2013/05/the-5-most-ridiculous-things-about-the-great-gatsby-old-spor t-98237/
The history of film The Birth of Film
Throughout our history the man has always had a deep interest in capturing and representing movement, different civilizations or people have looked for the way to achieve this fact. Several inventors and geniuses have built machines that produce the illusion of movement, for example the Phenakistiscope, the Praxinoscope, the Thaumatrope and the Zoetrope are clear representations of these inventions. When those machines were invented, three fundamental elements that constituted cinema were achieved, the persistence of vision, photography and projection. The two other elements, the perforated movie and the mechanism that permits its advance were invented in 1890 by Edison and Dickson.
The Silent Era
The cinema was born in December of 1895 when Lumière brothers
showed their film "The arrival of the train at La Ciotat" in the Indien salon of Paris with a projector called Cinematographe. Since that moment the movies were made about daily moments such as the labor or family life, but thanks to Georges Méliès, the inventor of the first fictions, people recovered their interest for this art.
At the beginning of the XX century, the films were already an industry extended around the world, the movies were mute and it appeared texts amid the scenes in order to explain the action of the film, sometimes a pianist played music to make happier the show. The barracks of the beginnings of cinema became elegant and roomy rooms where they began to assist the high social classes and not only the popular ones. Once the movies becomes a great popular show that overcame the social and idiomatic barriers, Edison sends his lawyers against the exploiters of film projectors with the purpose of monopolizing the film market, and after several processes, closings film theaters, confiscation of projectors and moments of violence, the victory was given to Edison.
This situation affected negatively to independent filmmakers, which moved to the other side of the country, to California. There Hollywood was founded and the big film production companies started to make the history of the North American films.
The Sound Era
On October 6, 1927 happens a revolutionary fact for the films, when A lan
Crosland left to listen the voice of the actor Al Jolson singing. With the arrival of this new era of the films also disappeared various actors upon bringing to light to the public its true voice, unpleasant or ridiculous, that did not correspond to its physical appearance. The technicians and filmmakers changed of form to do and to think about the films and the actors and actresses had to learn to vocalize correctly. The installation of the sound in the films coincided with the economic crack of 1929 that caused a Great Depression in EEUU. The citizens found in the films a way to escape from daily problems, for this reason Hollywood started to produce movies based on fantasy, comedy, music, etc. The color films arrived in 1935 with the movie "Becky Sharp" the sixth screen adaptation of Thackeray’s classic novel Vanity Fair by Rouben Mamoulian, although artistically its fullness was reached with the Victor Fleming's film "G one with the Wind" (1939). By these years it also was originated the animation films, which was especially made for children, being Walt Disney their favorite creator. Opposite to directors with mainly commercial positions, they appear others with new aesthetic restlessness such as Von Stroheim, Hitchcock or Orson Welles; Meanwhile in Europe the filmmakers of countries with totalitarian governments were guided toward a politically propagandistic cinema, frequently failed artistically as the case of the Fascists.
Post-War
When finishing the war it appeared in Italy the cinema called neo-realistic,
which was a testimonial cinema about the reality of that moment, it also showed a lot of humanity, it was worried about the problems of individuals living on streets and it supposed a deep look on the problems of subsistence of the poorest. By the 1950 the EEUU was passing a time of well-being that changed the lifestyle. The acquisition of televisions made the number of spectators smaller and they were invented new ways for recover it, so the big screen appealed to its best argument, its spectacular nature, the screen grown and was projected in color and the sound becomes stereo. It appeared the myths of cinema such as Marlon Brando, James Dean or M arilyn Monroe which break the conventional schemes of social behavior. The youths become an important potential public in this time of rock and roll. At the end of 1950, and following the steps of innovative directors such as Rossellini, a new generation of filmmakers contributed to improve the films, under the denomination nouvelle wanders, it was a cinema equally made with a few tools but with the force of aesthetic innovations. By the years 1960 appeared new film types, in Sweden, Ingmar Bergman made films focused in the introspection that were interested on the psychology of people, their anguishes and their existential doubts. In Italy, Antonioni, Pasolini, Bertolucci, Visconti and Fellini opt for the poetic films.
Cinema at the present time
Due to the apparition and introduction of videotapes as well as the
massive increase of television channels, the public watch much more movies than ever before and everything without leaving home. Nowadays the films look for a spectacular show because
the movies with lots of special effects are able to attract several spectators to the dark room. In the present films it is imposed quality and profitability. In the decade of the 1990 many film directors decided to be inspired by comic’s heroes or in some historical television shows to produce their movies. Nowadays, the process based on the photochemical is ally of new electronic technologies, the film studios produce movies in which computers have worked on the obtaining process and manipulation of images. Even more productions and directors include visual effects in their films, maybe it will become in the new characteristic of this new generation and the best example in this category is the saga of Harry Potter with seven films in its history. Source:http://www.aboutfilmschools.com/study/history.asp
The Functions of Film Music If you have ever watched a film muted, you will be aware that the experience just isn't the same. Music helps the images on screen become more true to life, it emphasizes emotions and can change the audience's perspective of a scene simply by a change of chord. Music elevates a film's sense of reality and places it into an opera-like level, where the characters and stories are larger than life, yet made more easy for us to relate to in our own lives. It has the ability to change the mood of a scene so subtly than the viewer is entirely unaware.
●
Emphasis of Movement: Music that enhances on screen action, such as running, flying, stabbing, hitting etc. The percussion section along with the bass provide driving rhythms that push the momentum of the scene along keeping the audience gripped.
●
Emphasis of Real Sounds: Underlining, in stylized musical fashion sounds not included in the music itself, e.g. rain, wind, footsteps, hooves, machines, screams, sighs, laughter, slam, bash, pow, wham, thud etc.
●
Representation of Location: The music helps to transport the audience to a certain place whether this is a physical place such as a country, a social place such as upper class, or a historical place such as the medieval era and even right through to the future. A perfect example of this is in Bollywood music from Bollywood's Golden Age in Film.
●
Source Music: As a function of music in film, Source music is music that can be heard both by the viewing audience and by the characters in the film, for example music heard from a CD player in the film would be an example of diegetic source music. The scene below from Titanic is another example of diegetic Source music in film as the band can be seen on screen.
●
Expression of Actor's emotions: The music is empathetic and highlights the character's emotions.
●
Audience's emotions: The music is used to create an atmosphere that may contrast with the character's emotions on screen, or alternatively may support them, signaling to the audience which emotions they are supposed to be feeling. For example, triumphant music may be played when a villain is defeated which is bad news for the villain however signals to the audience that this is a joyous moment.
●
Symbol: Using music to represent something or someone known by the audience from the narrative but not currently part of the narrative, e.g. a wounded hero seen in the misery and mud of the trenches but underscored by his or her theme.
●
Anticipation of subsequent action: This function is self explanatory, the music anticipates the action to follow, therefore the music may change from a happy pleasant sound to a more sinister sound before this
occurs on screen. This creates tension as the audience are unaware of what is to follow.
●
Enhancement and demarcation of the film's formal structure: These may include leitmotifs, opening music, links and bridges, tails and endings which all help the film's narrative easier to follow especially during time gaps in the film.
Source: http://scoring-for-film.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-functions-of-film-music.html? m=1
FASHION: KEY COMPONENT IN FILMS The role of costume in Do the Right Thing is not limited to scene-setting and character substantiation; it also underscores theme and structure. Take the memorable opening credit sequence in which Rosie Perez dances aggressively and seductively to Public Enemy’s ‘Fight the Power’. Within the song’s fourminute running time, Perez undergoes no fewer than five costume changes, accentuated by the jagged rhythms of the editing and the artificial red/blue/hot/cold stage lighting; a red dress with red tights and black belt, tight blue dancer’s Lycra without, then with leather jacket, then boxing gloves, silver shorts and black tube top with and without shimmering silver robe. The shifting textures of the film and its themes of violence, music, conflict and provocation are foreshadowed in this sequence.
The most colorful character of all is the community DJ Senor Love Daddy (Samuel L. Jackson), who wears a lurid black-based Hawaiian shirt, pinstriped peaked cap and leopard print-rimmed sunglasses that emphasize his extrovert personality. Ingeniously on Carter’s part, he is also given a range of hats that are first seen laid out across his console. Thusly, playing on the well-known phrase, Love Daddy quite literally wears a succession of different hats throughout the film to connote the variety of important roles he performs within the community; peacemaker, mediator, broadcaster and tribute leader (http://clothesonfilm.com/style-identity-in-do-the-right-thing/24545/