I think that one of the biggest questions that is often raised is
“how to fund my film?” I see countless crowd-sourcing campaigns (A
subject that I will tackle in detail in a future post) that really don't
understand how to fund an indie film. Filmmakers often expect a lot
from these campaigns. In some cases, like a sci-fi film, it is totally
justified. They can be expensive and successful sci-fi films often
require a ton of set design and art direction. Others have budgets that
are way too high.
The thing I will push in this post most is the need to have a
balanced budget. You need to have something that will allow you to
achieve your artistic vision while still being able to fund the film.
In order to successfully fund your film, you need to know how to
properly write your budget. A well laid out budget can help immensely in
funding. Any crowd-sourcing campaign should properly lay out how you
are planning on spending the money in detail. Grants (another subject
that I will be covering soon) also often require a highly detailed
budget.
Having a good budget can also help production go a bit smoother.
Actually laying out a budget can help you see exactly what expenses are
unnecessary. The first thing to cut out of a budget should be extra
rental costs. This can be eliminated by scheduling better. The less
shooting dates, the less money you'll need. The less money you'll need,
the easier it will be to fund your film. Budgeting properly can also
help you be prepared for shooting. You'll know exactly what is being
done and for what cost. That knowledge is power and can only help you.
Being ill-prepared can endanger a production. For example, I got the
opportunity to do a short documentary on a pro-gaming tournament that
was put on by IGN Entertainment. I quickly crewed up and got equipment
from my university. IGN offered to cover the cost of the press-passes
for the event and let us know that we only had to pay for the hotel.
I thought “Easy enough.” I was really excited to get to cover a
subject like this on such a great scale for my first real documentary
film. Pre-production was rushed and I had to come up with a plan quick. I
had just received my refund from my private bank loan that was used to
cover tuition. It was around 600 bucks and I thought that it would be
more than enough to get the production finished.
The event was taking place in Caesar's Palace in Atlantic City and
would be running extremely late. I figured that it would be best to get a
hotel room in Caesar's Palace so that we could be right in the center
of everything. We could go to bed late and get up early without having
to worry about transportation. So I booked a room. 1 night at Caesar's
palace for a room with 2 beds was nearly $400. I figured that a crew of 5
would be able to fit into the room and I booked it.
I immediately had to spend $30 on HDV tapes for the shoot. As for
transportation to the event, I managed to convince my girlfriend (who
was also working as my P.A) to drive us. We all were coming from Philly
so it wasn't that bad. I gave her around 40 for gas and we embarked to
Atlantic City. (Prior to this, I had spent around 20 on snacks and water
for the road) Little did we realize the cost of tolls along the road
going from Philly to Atlantic city. I can't remember the exact prices,
but it had to be around 10 bucks to get there. None of us really carried
cash so we had to scramble to find money for the various tolls.
When we got there, we shot for a 12 hour period. Our snacks were
quickly eaten and we eventually had to get a meal. In Atlantic city,
everything around Caesar's Palace is expensive. Even the small pizza
places around the boardwalk weren't cheap. (If I had planned better, I
would have realized that a McDonald's was right around the corner.) So
the remaining $100 went to feeding the crew. We were barley able to
scrape together the cash for the tolls to come back to Philly.
The stress of money put a lot of pressure on me. I went in blind,
expecting everything to be relatively cheap and for 180 to be a fair
amount to get the production done. I figured that since I was so good
about getting the crew and equipment together for free, that I wouldn't
have to worry much about food and all of the other minor costs. The
stress detracted from the film and it showed. I was an inexperienced
filmmaker who didn't plan very much.
If I had taken the time to sit down and write out a good budget, then
I would have been better prepared for not just the expenses, but also
the event itself. Production is about being prepared.
So how do you write a good budget? For reference, here is a budget for a short documentary I am producing. A day's worth of production is usually 12 hours.
First, find out what your production schedule is. For narrative, you
can usually shoot around 5-10 scenes a day. For documentary, it usually
is reliant on how much coverage you want and also the schedule of your
subjects. Next, take some time and jot down every expense you can think
of. Come up with the big ones first, and move on to some of the more
unexpected costs. Don't worry about the numbers yet. Simply write down
everything you may need. Even if you already have the specific
equipment, write these things down. Anything you may need for production
should be listed. Here are my usual things: Crew and cast payment,
equipment and props, food, transportation, lodging.
I then go through and find the prices for everything I listed. Crew
is usually a bit difficult, as many indie films will be made up of
volunteers. However, it is good to know exactly how much time people are
putting into a project. Numbers can be hard to define. My rate as a
producer is usually 20/hour. Directors are usually similar and crew can
be anywhere from 15-18. These are really rough estimates that help me
know exactly what people are doing.
Equipment is easier to find numbers for, as you simply look up what
it costs to rent. Food, transportation and lodging is dependent on
location. I usually research the locations and the transportation through sites like gasbuddy.com and see exactly how much travel will cost. The lodging can be as simple as calling up the location and getting in touch with the owners.
Now that you have all of these numbers, it is time to add them up for
one day of shooting. That number you can multiply by your shooting
dates. You should be able to have a good estimate on what your film
would cost.
It's most likely a pretty high number. For example, my latest
documentary is listed as 6 shooting days for a total cost of $13,481.
When you get to a number like this, it's pretty staggering. However, you
have a good estimate of the cost.
Now, I go through and I mark everything I can get for free. You
should be working to get anything you can for free. Actors, crew,
equipment, props, locations, etc. Anything you can. Work really hard at
this. The reason for marking everything is simple. It looks really good
to say that I managed to get 10k worth of this stuff for free. Grants
typically want you to have around 70% of your budget to be from in-kind
donations. This shows that you have taken the effort to get as much as
you can. It shows effort and passion.
This also has a pretty strong psychological effect. You see how hard
you've already worked. It's empowering to see the effort put in to your
film.
As for tools, I usually just use Excel. There is software out there.
It costs a good amount. I am prepping to get some software so I can be a
bit more organized.
But after all this work, you'll have a nice number. You'll know
approximately how much you'll need and exactly what you need it for.
When you go into the funding phase of your project, having an organized
budget will do wonders for you. People respond to professionalism. Being
organized gives the air of organization.
Now, in my next posts (coming out in the next few weeks) I will
tackle the subject of funding. This is where the budget will become
pivotal. I'll cover funding in two specific outlets: Grants and
Kickstarter. I have successfully achieved both.
Box Robots
Critical essays on film, video games, pro-wrestling and more.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
"Bully" documentary review: (Originally printed in Ritz Film Magazine)
Amidst a long battle with the MPAA,
Bully gained quite a bit of free publicity. The controversy
over its rating seemingly overshadowed its deeper look into an
important social issue. Yet while the MPAA undeservedly gave it a
harsh rating, which is an entirely different engaging question and
subsequent discussion, the social issue and relevancy are delivered
in a stunning, and often emotionally exhausting, way. Bully is,
without a doubt, not only a great piece of cinematic art but also a
wake up call to its target audience.
Bully, the newest film from Lee
Hirsch and distributed by the Weinstein Company, seeks to shed light
on just how bad the issue of bullying has become in the American
educational system today. It follows the stories of families and
individuals affected by bullying and does so in an engaging and
emotional way.
First off, Bully looks
stunning. The aesthetics of the film are quite beautiful, utilizing a
great sense of framing and deep focus. The cinematography is
accompanied by a great minimalistic, almost ambient score. It can be
haunting, yet never interferes with the emotional weight of the
subject. The editing is great, with some notable cuts that have an
almost disturbing sense of comedic timing. The high point of this
type of timing comes from a delayed pause as a result of a school
administrator scolding a victim instead of the bully. The film
portrays exactly what the viewer feels at that point.
The film does not pull any punches. It
presents the acts of bullying and the effect it has on the families
in a sobering way. Bully is a great piece of cinematic work.
The hand-held camera and shifting focus works in a way that recalls
both personal home movies and stark war films. This form is totally
representational of the content. The opening scene intercuts the
results of a suicide and home video of the victim in a gripping way.
The serious tone does not really ever let up. The piece seeks not
only to entertain, but to also force the viewer to look at what is
going on. There are moments where the viewer wants the camera to pull
back, but it can not. It simply must document the events and present
them to the viewer in a compelling way, no matter how painful it may
be.
It does have its emotional high points
though. The film is not a completely dark piece which will leave you
depressed. The ways in which the film portrays the victims of
bullying and some of their optimistic attitudes can bring a smile to
the viewers face. The film ends on a somewhat optimistic point.
However, this never undercuts the reality of the lives lost to
bullying.
Thus, with the overall dark tone, a
question must be raised. Who is the audience for Bully? The
controversy surrounding the films original rating stemmed solely from
the fact that educators would not be able to screen the film in
schools. While some content was reportedly cut from the film, there
is still a considerable amount of harsh language and violence. The
film has its emotional low points that leave the viewer at best worn
out and at worst feeling like they have attended a funeral. While
children are completely capable of emotional complexity and deeply
intelligent thought processes, as the film portrays, the greatest
value of the film will come not from showing it to children, but
rather to adults. The discussions it will raise are pivotal in
starting the change that needs to happen.
The issues presented in the film are
serious and complex. It is easy to write off the film for not really
presenting any answers to the problems or presenting the point of
view from the bully. These critiques completely miss the point. The
problem lies deep within the foundation of our society. Bully
does not present a solution, but rather opens up the discussion for
the rebuilding of our educational and parenting systems. Simply put,
people need to see this film. The only way that things can change are
first through discussion. Bully opens up this opportunity in
an engaging and entertaining way.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Fantasy Booking: Post MiTB and Summerslam Build
Raw opens with Sheamus coming out and
talking about MiTB. He says that he isn't stupid and that he knows
very well that Bryan will take shortcuts to gain the title. He also
notes how dangerous Bryan can be. He admits that he isn't much of a
submission guy and that is a weakness. Regal comes out and apologizes
for what happened at MiTB. He notes that he trained Bryan and it
clouded his vision of being a good General Manager. So to make up for
it, he allowed Bryan the night off so he couldn't get involved with
Sheamus' match. To also apologize for what happened, he states that
he wants to help train Sheamus in the art of submission wrestling.
Regal says that tonight Sheamus will be facing Jack Swagger in a
submission match.
After a few matches, we see Regal in a
backstage segment. Miz bursts in, followed by security guards who
hold him back from Regal. Miz is furious that Regal took him out of
the MiTB match. Regal tells the security guards to leave. He
apologizes to Miz and tells him that what he did was wrong. So to
make up for it, Regal announces Bryan vs Miz at Summerslam for the
MiTB briefcase. Miz smiles and proceeds to slap Regal. He thanks
Regal for the match but says that is payback for what happened at the
Pay-per-view. Regal nods and says that he deserved that.
Next, we see Ziggler in the ring with
the WWE championship. He talks about how he had been working so hard
for this title and that his last championship win was shameful. He
talks about how he had been held back for so long and he finally
broke the glass ceiling with the help of the Money in the Bank
contract. He says that he wasn't sure if he would ever get the title
and that winning the contract is the best thing that has ever
happened to him, outside of this title win. He says that he owes
someone else and that this person was supposed to be standing next to
him tonight with the World title. He says that Kofi was screwed and
that he should be celebrating with him.
Kofi comes out and says that Ziggler
shouldn't worry about him. He is happy for Dolph and that he should
enjoy the title. They hug and Dolph says that he still feels like he
owes Kofi. Dolph talks about how they have had some great matches
together over the past year and he asks the crowd if they would mind
seeing one more match between the two. He says that he would be
honored to face Kofi at Summerslam for the WWE title.
Suddenly, Punk's music hits. He comes
out holding the MiTB briefcase that Dolph won. Ziggler and Kofi look
confused until Punk says that there isn't anything to worry about and
that he can't cash in. He congratulates Ziggler and says that he
really deserves it. Punk talks about the parallels between them. How
the briefcase allowed them to get what they deserved. He says that
while Kofi is another person who deserves the title, Punk still has a
rematch and he wants to use it at Summerslam. He continues by saying
that they all shouldn't be talking about Summerslam right now though
and that they should focus on Ziggler's celebration. Punk gives Dolph
the briefcase and says that he was going to come out and use this to
celebrate his successful title defense, but it works in this
situation also. Ziggler opens the briefcase to reveal the newly
designed WWE championship belt. Ziggler hands Kofi the old
championship and they all pose in the ring with the new title. Kofi
then suggests that he and Punk have a match to decide who faces
Ziggler at Summerslam. Punk agrees and goes on to beat Kofi. Kofi
seems disappointed but congratulates Punk.
Sheamus comes out for his match with
Swagger accompanied by Regal. Vickie comes out with Swagger but is
stopped by Regal. Regal tells her that she is banned from ringside.
Swagger and Sheamus have a strong technical match with Swagger often
getting the best of Sheamus. Regal coaches Sheamus and stops Sheamus
from using the Brogue kick when Swagger is nearly beaten down. He
says that he needs to make Swagger tap. As Sheamus approached Swagger
to lock in a submission, Swagger capitalizes and locks in an ankle
lock. Sheamus fights it, but taps. Swagger celebrates as Regal slides
in the ring. Swagger goes to re-apply the ankle lock but Regal stops
him. He tells him to leave. Swagger does and Regal helps Sheamus into
the back.
The next week, Regal announces that Bryan has been sent home once again. He says that Bryan will have an interview via satellite tonight. In that interview, Bryan says that he won't cash in until the Pay-per-view after Summerslam and that he wants the match to be a submission match. He wants to give Sheamus time to prepare because Wrestlemania has haunted him. He says that he prays that Sheamus makes it to the PPV after Summerslam as he wants to decisively beat him.
The next week, Regal announces that Bryan has been sent home once again. He says that Bryan will have an interview via satellite tonight. In that interview, Bryan says that he won't cash in until the Pay-per-view after Summerslam and that he wants the match to be a submission match. He wants to give Sheamus time to prepare because Wrestlemania has haunted him. He says that he prays that Sheamus makes it to the PPV after Summerslam as he wants to decisively beat him.
2 weeks before Summerslam, Regal calls
Miz into his office. He tells Miz that Bryan has already cashed in
the briefcase and that he no longer holds the contract. He says that
Bryan has a match at Night of Champions no matter what. He said that Bryan didn't want to risk not getting the
shot so he insisted on cashing in early. Miz gets angry but Regal
says that the only thing he can offer is a guaranteed title shot
against whoever wins at that PPV. He says that the match will happen
immediately after, in the same night. Regal says that the only
condition is Miz has to beat Bryan at Summerslam for this to happen.
Otherwise, Miz gets nothing. Miz agrees.
Over the next few weeks, Regal puts Sheamus into other submission matches with people like Alberto Del Rio, Christian and even Regal himself. Sheamus comes close, but only manages to make Regal tap out. This happens the week before Summerslam. Regal congratulates him and says that he has the fight of his life at Summerslam.
He questions Regal as to who his opponent will be at Summerslam. Regal says that the match will be against another great technical wrestler: John Cena. He says that if Sheamus can beat Cena, then he can beat Bryan.
Fantasy Booking: The World Heavyweight Title to Money in the Bank
My view of the WHC. The title should be
utilized to get new guys into the scene. I enjoy the dynamic that WWE
has created with the two separate brands. I don't mean Smackdown and
Raw, but rather the hardcore wrestling fan scene with Punk and Bryan
headlining many of these matches and the other scene being heavy
story matches that Cena is involved in. Thus, I think that the WHC
should be viewed as an “upper mid-card” title for the core
wrestling brand. The WWE title should stand as the main title in this
core division. It can also stand as a bridge into the more storyline
heavy matches.
I will be booking this up to Wrestlemania. It will focus on the WHC, but will sometimes include other feuds and shows.
Money in the Bank PPV:
Big Show is challenging for the title
vs Sheamus. Sheamus' draw is being a big guy who kicks ass. So
pitting him against Big Show will be an impressive way to get him
even more over. This match will obviously not be the best, but is the
starting point for the title going into Wrestlemania, which is my
end-goal for the WHC fantasy booking posts. WWE views Sheamus as an
asset and the next Cena. So I want to give him some personality.
Instead of having him be the guy who kicks everyone's ass, lets have
him be at risk of getting his ass kicked. This match will be a plain
brawl match. Have them go hard. It will make the match better. This
won't be a technical marvel.
The week before Money in the Bank 2012,
the new general managers are announced. It is none other than William
Regal. Regal is welcomed by the new Smackdown manager Teddy Long, who
has been in power for a few weeks. This is due to Teddy having a long
track record of Smackdown managing and Raw being significantly harder
to find a good GM for due to the track record of past GM's (Most
recently Big Johnny) As a gift from Teddy, he allows Regal to run
MiTB. Regal is happy and thanks Teddy, displaying his good
intentions.
The opening match is the WWE Title
contract Money in the Bank match with a newly turned and Vickie-less
Dolph Ziggler winning. Ziggler has been not using heel tactics for
the weeks leading into the PPV. In fact, he even sends Vickie away
from his matches to ensure clean wins. Thus, he gets a good reaction
for winning the briefcase. He even befriends Kofi Kingston, who he
admits his respect for.
The next match will be the WWE
championship match. Money in the Bank will mark the end of the
Bryan/Punk feud (for now.) During the match, AJ proves to have been
with Bryan all along and turns on Punk allowing Bryan to get the
submission win. He celebrates (as he does with the Yes chants) and
embraces AJ. He holds her up, along with the WWE championship as Punk
lies in the corner looking up at him. Punk then proceeds to attack
Bryan, but then is interrupted by Regal who demands order. Bryan/Punk
continue to battle as Regal then slides in the ring to break them up
himself. The locker room empties (with jobbers and some of the
participants from the first MiTB match) to pull them apart. It is
complete chaos. Regal convinces Punk to leave and walks him up the
ramp. This shows Regal's new outlook on being a good GM who is ready
to get his hands dirty.
Suddenly, Ziggler (who came out to help
pull apart Bryan/Punk and is now in the ring with Bryan) hits the
Zig-Zag on Bryan from behind. The other wrestlers who held back Bryan
stand in disbelief as Ziggler's new friend Kofi runs down the ramp
with the Raw briefcase. He hands it to Ziggler and helps Bryan up.
Bryan looks at Kofi confused, only to get Zig-Zagged once again.
Ziggler cashes in as the other wrestlers empty the ring to stop AJ
from interfering. The bell rings and Ziggler wins the WWE
championship. The crowd goes nuts.
After a few matches, there is a
backstage segment where a prominent heel who is in the Smackdown MiTB
(perhaps the Miz) is bullying Regal backstage. Regal explodes and
knocks out Miz cold. The announcers now assume there are only 5
participants for this year's Smackdown MiTB. (6 MiTB members is the
best option as 8 often seems too chaotic.)
Next is the MiTB match for World
Heavyweight title contract. The 5 members enter and begin to have a
grueling match. Kofi Kingston is about to win, only for Bryan to run
down the ramp and knock him from the top of the ladder to the floor.
Suddenly, Bryan is alone in the ring. He looks up at the briefcase as
Regal's music hits. He comes out to a loud cheer and announces that
Bryan is the 6th participant. Bryan climbs up the ladder
and wins, unopposed. Bryan quickly runs up the ramp and shakes hands
with Regal. The crowd boos like crazy.
Next is the World Heavyweight
championship match: Sheamus vs Big Show. Sheamus manages to beat Show
with a double brogue kick (or something impressive.) Expectedly, Show
then gets up and knocks Sheamus out. Everyone stands, expecting
Bryan. His music hits and out he comes with the briefcase and AJ. He
slides in the ring and the ref holds Bryan back as Sheamus is laying
flat. Sheamus then stirs and Bryan smiles. The ref comes over to get
the briefcase from Bryan. Bryan proceeds to knock out the ref with
the briefcase. Then Sheamus. AJ then grabs a mic for Bryan. He says
how he lost in 18 seconds at Wrestlemania and how it was the most
embarrassing night of his life. He then says that he will avenge that
loss by making Sheamus tap out on his terms. He kicks Sheamus in the
head and leaves. The next match is the Cena match and closes out the
PPV.
Next up will be the fallout of MiTB and
Summerslam.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Call It: A study on Psychopathy and Anton Chigurh
Humans, in general, are destructive
creatures. Since the dawn of man, bloodshed is common. War is, by
definition, a human creation. However, humans rationalize war with
more noble ideals: courage, pride, etc. Nations raise their warriors
up as heroes, and in some cases, treat them like gods. Samurai,
Aztec, Gladiator, Marine. All warriors from different times and all
wielding different weapons. But all have one core thing in common.
All are murderers. What sets these men apart from criminals? Is it a
cause? Does fighting for a country forgive the many families left
without a loved one? The answer to this question is simply a matter
of human emotion. Like most humans, most of these warriors had
empathy for their opponents and honored them. Emotion is the key
difference between a human and something far more devious; a
psychopath.
“The psychopathic personality is
characterized by a constellation of traits including impulsivity,
callousness, and irresponsibility.” (Walsh 2006) The subject lacks
all moral boundaries which makes most humans listen to their
conscience. The psychopath often displays an inhumane lack of empathy
for anything, often resorting to violence against animals and humans
alike. In the eyes of others, this person would be perceived as sick
and any preconceived notions of a poor soul with a mental disorder
would instantly disappear. However, this disorder is real and the
subject may need institutionalization in order to be eventually
reintegrated into society. However, hope for patients with
psychopathy is extremely low. Some even goes as far as saying that
psychopathy is both unmanageable and incurable.
However, this psychopath, upon first
inspection, would appear fairly normal. In fact, most possess an
extremely charismatic way of dealing with others. “In addition to
their aggression and violence, psychopaths are thought to be chronic
deceivers, often lying for instrumental reasons such as to escape
punishment” (Porter 2006) Psychopathy is often accompanied by
pathological lying, in which the subject deceives many others for no
obvious reason. However, this does not discredit the number of liars
who uses deception as a form of allure, in which trust is built. As a
result, the lies can vary from what the person did on an afternoon to
what the person does for a living. Minor “white lies” can quickly
change into larger ones, leading the victim to question everything.
This manipulation, coupled with the psychopath's charismatic
personality, is key in how cult leaders gain a steady following.
Though, it should be noted that not all
psychopaths end up as cult leaders or killers. “The interpersonal
and affective features [of psychopathy] are fundamentally tied to a
socially deviant (not necessarily criminal) lifestyle that includes
irresponsible and impulsive behavior, and a tendency to ignore or
violate social conventions and mores.” (Hare 2009) A psychopath, by
definition, may not ever commit a criminal act. Some may lead fairly
simple lives, never crossing over into the truly deviant types. On
the other hand, a psychopath may commit the most heinous of crimes
that are never discovered due to the extreme intelligence one may
possess. Many may go to great lengths to cover up anything, in order
to continue their reckless lives. Others may keep whatever secrets
they have, even after being caught. The severity of psychopathy is,
like most other psychological disorders, dependent on the individual.
Comorbidity can include anti-social
personality disorder, substance abuse, ADHD, anxiety and a number of
personality disorders. Thus, these factors can also play into how a
psychopath may react to certain situations. Perhaps the most
dangerous conditions paired with psychopathy is PTSD, or post
traumatic stress disorder. This disorder is common in soldiers who
experience traumatic events, and is usually characterized by
flashbacks. These flashbacks may be triggered at any time and coupled
with psychopathy, the subject may display increased aggression,
leading to an extremely dangerous mix of rage and manipulation.
The causes of psychopathy are mainly
disputed. While some argue that genetics have a large part in the
appearance of psychopathy, others claim that the childhood one
experiences may have a large part in the condition. The general
consensus between psychologists, is that there is a major neural
problem going on. “...reduced emotional attention in psychopathy;
that is reduced priming of emotion relevant representations in the
temporal cortex by the amygdala.” (Blair 2008)
Psychopathy is largely thought to be
hereditary. It commonly appears between family members. Often, a
patriarch has it, the offspring will display the condition as well.
This, however, does not mean that all family members will have
psychopathy, nor does it mean that they will carry out criminal acts
like those before them.
While genetics may have a large part,
the childhood will most likely decide if the genes “activate.” If
a trauma does not appear, the condition may never makes itself known.
In contrast, a major trauma may appear, and psychopathy may not show
up at all.
Throughout history, there has been a
number of psychopathy cases documented. However, the amount of
psychopaths seen in popular, and independent, cinema completely
overshadows historical cases. As film and storytelling evolves,
typical story arcs change according to the times. The classic good
versus evil films have divulged into a new archetype where both good
and evil have favorable and distressing qualities. This enables the
viewer to both sympathize with the villain and dislike the hero.
The villain in film has also majorly
evolved. While stereotypical villains of the past often could be
easily trumped by the protagonist, recent villains have become far
more intelligent and charismatic than previously displayed. While
older films are centered around the blatant story arc shown on
screen, recent films require viewers to dig into the back story of a
character. The filmmaker now has the ability to control the depths in
which a character displays realism.
Often within this back story, one will
discover the reasoning and motives behind anything that character
does. This brings the character on screen to life and enables a
deeper suspension of disbelief. Naturally, the characters can be
studied more deeply and in some cases, these characters can be
psychologically diagnosed, both villain and hero alike. In perhaps
one of the most shocking displays of psychopathy in film, Anton
Chigurh shows how dark a psychopath's mind can delve.
In the 2007 Coen Brother's film, No
Country for Old Men based on a book by Cormac MacCarthy, Vietnam
veteran Llewelyn Moss stumbles upon the remnants of a drug deal gone
wrong. He finds and takes two million dollars, which brings
psychopathic killer Anton Chigurh after him to recover the money.
Chigurh is a textbook example of a psychopath, killing any and all
that get in his way with no remorse.
In perhaps the most chilling scene of
the film, Chigurh enters a rest stop and leaves the question of
whether or not he kills the clerk up to chance. This scene displays
the common psychopathic trait of charisma. Chigurh is questioning the
clerk in an almost playful way. The clerk simply wishes to engage in
polite conversation asking about the weather. Chigurh questions his
assumptions and begins a delicate dance of words which obviously
disturbs the older man. Finally, Chigurh flips a coin and tells the
clerk to call it. The man tells Chigurh he did not wager anything, to
which Chigurh responds “You've been putting it up your whole life.”
This one line reveals everything about Chigurh. He is impulsive,
cruel and extremely intelligent. During this scene, Chigurh has some
surprise insights to life. He states that the coin's mint date is
1959, and that it had traveled 21 years to get to that place. It had
traveled 21 years to decided the fate of the clerk.
After the clerk correctly calls it,
Chigurh gives him the coin and advises him not to simply put it in
his pocket, where it will be mixed in with all the other coins. “It
will become just another coin.” he states, turning to leave. Before
leaving the store, he turns back and says “Which it is.”
Later in the film, another character
states that Chigurh has morals that transcend money and drugs. This
raises the question of whether the large amount of murders committed
by Chigurh were necessary in his quest to recover the money from
Moss. All of those murders were simply committed for enjoyment.
However, not all of the deaths can be
rationalized by joy. Earlier in the film, Chigurh offers Moss the
chance to save his wife by giving himself up for death. Moss denies
this offer, believing he can kill Chigurh and claim the two million
without worry. This decision haunts the viewer as Chigurh appears at
Mrs. Moss's home. Llewelyn had been gunned down earlier and Carla
Jean, Llewelyn's wife, buried her mother that day, only to arrive
home to Chigurh sitting coyly in her bedroom. He explains that he
offered Llewelyn Carla Jean's safety, but he had arrogantly denied
him. Chigurh claims that it is something that he has to do, implying
that he is the angel of death. This rationalization is the basis for
her murder, another trait common in those diagnosed with psychopathy.
He offers Carla Jean one chance by calling a coin he flips, thus
creating a game out of the life or death scenario. She denies to play
the game because it is not up to the coin to decided; that Chigurh
has all the power.
In this same scene, Chigurh asks that
if the road had led her to this end, then of what use is the road?
This insight displays Chigurh's impulsivity, simply asking of what
use is life? His mortality is questioned here, challenging why he
would even be doing all of this anyway.
Ultimately, Chigurh has no remorse for
anything he does. Often, when committing his heinous crimes, Chigurh
shows no emotion at all. The only emotion ever shown during a kill,
is in the beginning of the film, where he strangles a deputy after
just being apprehended. “When the deputy finally dies, Chigurh
exhales with an almost orgasmic satisfaction.” (Falsani 2009) This
scene of emotion instantly defines the type of character Chigurh is,
making it extremely difficult to sympathize with his blight. In fact,
he comes of as a cold blooded murderer with no discernible blight. He
is simply a villain, through and through, who will never have any
redeeming qualities.
Unlike most humans who commit sins,
Chigurh displays no chance of redemption during any of the scenes he
is in. A character even describes Chigurh as the devil incarnate,
simply there to create chaos in any community he enters. He is
ultimately the worst nightmare any human could imagine, and as quick
as he appears, he is gone.
After a serious car accident, Chigurh
emerges with various serious injuries, including a broken arm, and
simply disappears before medical personnel can show up to aid him.
The threat of capture is far more overwhelming than the wounds, so he
peacefully fades into suburbia.
One can only guess what happens after
he disappears. Evidence would support the hypothesis of Chigurh
entering another community to take on whatever jobs others would not
take. Was the whole incident simply another chapter in Chigurh's
bloody life, rather than an episode of his psychopathy?
Chigurh is one of the worst cases of
psychopathy in film history. He is one of the greatest villain of the
21st century. Perhaps one of the most aggravating things to see as a
viewer, is the fact that Chigurh gets to walk away. Classic
storytelling would lead the story arc in a direction where, even
though Moss would die, Chigurh would ultimately be captured. This
never happens on screen, and no evidence is ever presented that
Chigurh is ever captured.
The only evidence of Chigurh's past is
immediately shown at the beginning of the film, where Chigurh is
captured. This indicates that Chigurh had committed other criminal
acts before the film begins, leading the audience to believe that
Chigurh is well versed in the art of murder. Thus, Chigurh will
inevitably commit other acts of violence.
While evidence supports that his crimes
are simply not unique in nature due to his past, Chigurh's childhood
and origin of his psychopathy are never explained, nor are any clues
given. His origin and even his nationality is completely alien to the
1980 era west Texas in which the story takes place. Thus, he is truly
unique to the community. However, as one character notes, there are a
lot of murderers, criminals and psychopaths out there in the world.
While he is alien to the community, the world in which the story
takes place is just as gritty and dark as the world of today.
Chigurh is ultimately one of the
darkest characters ever to grace the screen. His psychopathic actions
simply symbolize the world in which we live; a world ripe with chaos.
Though Chigurh's story is a work of fiction, his story is not unique.
Psychopaths are in existence, and often part of a community that will
inevitably be shaken to the core with the actions of one person.
Diagnosis of psychopaths can be quite
difficult if their deviancy never crosses the line of criminality. A
case may end up lying dormant inside a community without anyone ever
knowing, not because of a good cover up, but simply because that
individual never acted on the impulses. Perhaps that person did act
on the impulses, but ended up seeking help and ultimately being
reintegrated in society. While a psychopath may be institutionalized
and reintegrated, chances of relapse are always possible. Psychotic
episodes can occur at any time, resulting in horrific consequences.
Indicators are quite hard to spot in
those that have psychopathy. Most are completely nonverbal and can be
easily missed. In a study by Jessica Klaver, it was found that
“psychopathy was related to increased response time, number of
words spoken, and illustrator use, with the interpersonal dimension
specifically related to increased blinking and speech hesitations.”
(Klaver 2006) Often times the psychopath would display awkward visual
cues that are common in people who are lying. This can help tip off
an individual to lies told by the psychopath, thus making it easier
to get the desired, truthful response from the individual.
Psychopathy can ultimately be an
extremely dangerous psychological disorder. One who possesses this
condition can either be a major threat to society, or a perfect
member of it. Whether Anton Chigurh of No Country for Old Men, or a
neighbor, psychopaths are existing in society. With this knowledge,
some members of a community may live in fear. They may create “watch
dog” groups and guard their children diligently. However, suburbia
will never be completely safe. As quick as a fire may break out or an
earthquake may hit, Anton Chigurh may be there. Falsani says it best
when describing Chigurh and his interaction with the west Texas
region: “There is a stranger in our midst come to destroy us.”
(Falsani 2009) Ultimately, whether or not a stranger appears is
purely a matter of chance. It is purely a coin toss.
References
Blair, R., & Mitchell, D.. (2009).
Psychopathy, attention and emotion. Psychological Medicine, 39(4),
543-555. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from ProQuest Psychology Journals.
(Document ID:1706788781).
Donald R Lynam, & Thomas A Widiger.
(2007). USING A GENERAL MODEL OF PERSONALITY TO IDENTIFY THE BASIC
ELEMENTS OF PSYCHOPATHY. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(2),
160-78. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from ProQuest Psychology Journals.
(Document ID: 1261933781).
Falsani, C. (2009). The Dude Abides:
The Gospel According To The Coen Brothers. (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan.
Hare, R., & Neumann, C.. (2009).
Psychopathy: Assessment and Forensic Implications. Canadian Journal
of Psychiatry, 54(12), 791-802. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from
ProQuest Psychology Journals. (Document ID: 1937854551).
Jessica R Klaver, Zina Lee, &
Stephen D Hart. (2007). Psychopathy and Nonverbal Indicators of
Deception in Offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 337-51.
Retrieved April 26, 2010, from ProQuest Psychology Journals.
(Document ID: 1316465651).
Graf, R., Roybal, M. (Producers) &
Coen J. & E. (Directors) (2007) No Country For Old Men [Motion
picture]. United States: Miramax & Paramount Vantage
Stephen Porter, & Michael
Woodworth. (2007). "I'm Sorry I did it ... but He Started it":
A Comparison of The Official and Self-Reported Homicide Descriptions
of Psychopaths and Non-Psychopaths. Law and Human Behavior, 31(1),
91-107. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from ProQuest Psychology Journals.
(Document ID: 1222223611).
Zach Walsh, & David S. Kosson.
(2007). Psychopathy and Violent Crime: A Prospective Study of the
Influence of Socioeconomic Status and Ethnicity. Law and Human
Behavior, 31(2), 209-29. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from ProQuest
Psychology Journals. (Document ID: 1238683421).
Monday, July 2, 2012
Different Portals: The Future of the Game Form and the Connection to Film
As noted in last weeks post
the game industry takes a considerable amount of cues from the film
industry. This is apparent in the most basic form of a singular video
game narrative. Since the dawn of games, the industry has looked towards
film for guidance. This has resulted in the medium being somewhat lost.
The narrative experiences of games have, decidedly, come a long way.
Games, as an industry, have grown considerably. (See below) With
pinnacle narrative games like Metal Gear Solid or Fallout, it is hard to
argue that games haven't found a narrative niche. However while these
narrative experiences offer quite a bit, the medium still hasn't fully
found it's potential.
The number one game, in sales, from last year was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. It sold over 7 million units and grossed over 1 billion
in 2011. That is nearly a quarter of the money made in the game
industry in 1995. This is largely due to the multiplayer aspect of the
game, rather than the narrative experience. When analyzed from the
critical film perspective, the narrative experience of Call of Duty is
akin to a Transformers film. Full of explosions, adrenalin charged
moments, and mass appeal, yet lacking in the artistic value that
critically acclaimed films offer. Both the Transformers films and the
Call of Duty games make a staggering amount of money. However, this is
viewed as critically valuable in the game industry.
In the film critic community, the money made by a film is ignored and
the film is judged based on the artistic merits it holds. In the game
industry, these games garner awards from numerous critical circles. Call
of Duty's exciting moments are entertaining, but worthy of awards?
MW3 is one of the most realistic military
games out there. From the guns, to the sounds, to the actual landscapes
that you play in; everything is researched by a team down to the most
miniscule detail so that the gamer has a sensation of war. Gameplay
borrows content from films and real life events and actions. How a
soldier moves, how a gun shoots and how a helicopter functions are all
aspects of the game. The game industry is clearly taking the gritty cues
of modern war films as the aesthetic of first person shooters. Yet it
seems to miss the anti-war message found in some of the most successful
war films, such as Saving Private Ryan.
Thus are we, as gamers, rewarding the game industry for taking the
most basic, instant gratification aspects of film whilst ignoring the
deeper value of the medium?
What may be even worse for the medium
than simply lacking a message, is that some gameplay elements may
actually undercut the implied message. As noted in a recent episode of The Indoor Kids,
Bioshock is, at it's core, about determinism. Yet this message is
undermined by the fact that the main character spends an enormous amount
of time killing people. It simply detracts from the message and
contradicts it.Thus, there is a disconnect between the form of the
gameplay and the content of the narrative message. With that being said,
games are still in the very early phases of development. It is
understandable that gaming hasn't realized the potential of the medium.
Unlike films, games have the opportunity to create an instant connection
between the character and the player. The industry has thus far focused
on the experience of the player and the opportunity to instantly
gratify that player with flashy action sequences rather than formulating
a way to get the message across in both a narrative and gameplay driven
form.
That isn't to say that all games have
fallen subject to poor form and content synthesis. Nor does it mean that
the narrative merits of games like Red Dead Redemption, Metal Gear
Solid, or Fallout (All brilliant narrative games) are somehow
invaluable. Those game should be, and often are, recognized for their
achievements in raising the bar for narrative experiences. However, they
fail to realize the full potential of their medium.
A game that does pulls off the form and content synthesis is Portal 2. Portal manages to take the narrative
message of free will and presents it with the gameplay that presents
free will. The very way you play the game mirrors the narrative. The
game offers you countless ways to complete a puzzle, forcing you to
utilize your free thought to formulate an escape, much like the main
character Chell. Not only are you Chell, but Chell is you. She is what
you make her. Unlike in Red Dead Redemption, where you have freedom to
make John Marston whoever you'd like but are still limited by the
narrative choices of John, Chell offers a direct link into the game. You
ultimately learn as much as she does in the narrative by utilizing the
free will that sets you apart from every other character in the game.
You are a human, not a robot. Thus, you have the ability to do what you
want. It is an interesting parallel to characters you play in other
games. John is a robot who is bound by the choices programed by the
designers of the game. While the player can utilize their free will to
do whatever they desire in the game portions, the cinematic of the game
are decidedly John's choices and not yours.
John, while he is a compelling character looking for redemption, doesn't always match up with the actions of the player.This can cause a disconnect between the character and the player, causing a rift in the emotional tension.
This is a direct relation to film. You
can build rapport between an audience and a character, but that
character is ultimately a programmed individual. Gaming has largely
taken this aspect from film. What sets Portal apart is the ability to be
in the game and relay the narrative message directly through both the
events in the game and the gameplay.
While the game industry looks towards the
film industry for an evolution of its medium, it has yet to realize the
very things that make films so successful as an artform. Rather than
focusing on the exciting instant gratification of the Transformers
films, it should look for the introspective artistic value found in a
Kubrick film. The game industry is evolving immensely on the front of
narrative experiences, it has quite a way to go in terms of merging form
and content. It has yet to really realize its potential as a unique art
form. However, with a game like Portal 2 standing as a successful
artistic experience, the future looks bright.
Finding Critical Value in New French Extremity
Throughout film
history, France has proven to be the source for influential film
movements. From cinema verite to
the French New Wave, French film makers have created some of the most
critically acclaimed film movements that changed, multiple times,
film as an art form. However, never before has France experienced a
cultural identity crisis in which concerns of the global market
clashes with the type of art cinema that France is known for. Through
this crisis, a new movement has emerged which melds both art cinema
and appeal to international audiences, while also pushing the
boundaries of film making. Coined by Artforum author James Quandt,
the New French Extremity is a movement that is “willfully
transgressive.” (Quandt 127) The movement which has emerged within
the last 20 years, features intense subject matter highlighted by
both traditional narratives as well as experimental design.
While
this movement continues to push the boundaries of film making with
clear results, critics seem to pan over the films due to the intense
subject matter depicted in an unforgiving way. Many film scholars and
critics, including Quandt “cite the films... merely to castigate
their graphic content, dismiss their artistic agendas as
disingenuous, and deride their alleged pretentiousness” (Palmer 26)
These statements, made by critics, raise the question as to where the
line between artistic value and exploitation occurs, or if it even
exists. Regardless of whether or not this line exists, there is both
artistic and critical value to be found within the New French
Extremity movement and films that belong to it.
What
dictates the artistic value of the film and does it devalue it
through it's transgressive nature? Film, by nature, has always been a
bit transgressive. Landmark films such as Spike Lee's Do
The Right Thing (1989) and
Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
were considered controversial at the time of their releases. Even
Star Wars (1977) which
chose to put the credits at the end of the film rather than the
beginning landed George Lucas flak from the Hollywood traditionalist
film making world. Yet at some point, the films cross over into a
realm of exploitation. Some of the most controversial films of the
Blaxploitation drama are still considered exploitative by today's
standards (Melvin Van Peeble's Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss
Song [sic])
History
has, undoubtedly, produced some of cinema's most controversial films,
many of which sacrifice artistic value due to the content on the
screen. Arguably, the two most noteworthy films that have succeeded
in crossing from art into exploitative trash do so at the expense of
live animals which are graphically murdered on screen: Ruggero
Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust (1980)
and Tun Fei Mou's Men Behind the Sun (1988).
The sacrifice of a living being is the push into pure exploitation,
yet many critics hold New French Extremity films to the same regards
as these animal snuff films.
Films
belonging to the New French Extremity movement, such as Gasper Noe's
Irreversible (2002),
Claire Denis' Trouble
Every Day (2001)and Bruno
Dumont's Twentynine Palms(2003)
often carry great intellectual and artistic value, with a clear theme
that flows under all of them, yet are often ignored due to the way in
which the values are presented. “The intellectual content is...
overshadowed by the films' physical force structures.” (Hagman 38)
These films often present a deeper meaning than popular Hollywood
films, yet simply due to the intrusiveness of the content critics and
scholars alike resist the films.
Even
with critical scorn aside, these films have quickly gained an
audience through the international festival circuit. A number of New
French Extremity films have premiered at Cannes Film Festival, and
have remained popular with international audiences. With a clear
audience, as well as clear artistic value, these films deserve
critical attention.
These
films are met with, most clearly, confusion in the critical world.
“By mixing traditional art-filmic markers with exploitation and
genre elements, the films do not conform to any ready-made critical
categories.” (Hagman 37) It is through this reasoning that critics
may take on the films in a cautious way. The films, which are
extremely grim and usually depict the human animal as a vehicle for
bodily horror, resist the urge to conform to traditional cinematic
forms. “...critics and scholars have built entrenched positions
around the notion that cinema should either infuriate or placate.”
(Palmer 26) New French Extremity excels in depicting the brutality of
human nature, stripped down to it's basic form, in an almost
disturbingly experimental and impersonal way that it becomes
impossible to place in such categories.
These
films are designed to induce powerful emotions from the viewer. Not
only do they often tackle intense issues involving sexuality,
violence and a mesh of the two, but they utilize arthouse form to
generate numerous powerful emotions. For example, Noe's Irreversible
opens with a dizzying camera
that rotates around, creating heavy vertigo. The colors mesh together
and become reminiscent of various experimental works that rely
heavily on the use of blending colors as vehicles for artistic value.
This varied and often times violent camera continues as the story
unfolds in reverse. The film opens outside of a homosexual fetish
club with ambulances and police swarming. The main characters are
introduced: one lies beaten and bloodied on a stretcher and the other
apprehended by the police. Moments later, the audience sees what led
to this. The main characters brutally beat a man to death with a fire
extinguisher (in one of cinema's most notorious and violent scenes).
It is not until the story reverts further that the audience sees what
caused this destruction. The main characters' female friend, Alex, is
brutally raped and beaten.
Suddenly,
the varied and violent camera stops and presents one of the most
intense and painful longshots ever filmed. The 9 minute scene
features a motionless camera pulled back to reveal the entire
sequence taking place. “...a single take static camera watches from
floor level as Alex...is raped, with her suffering face visible in
the foreground throughout” (Keesey 96) This framing, is the
decisive point in which the film features less violent camera
movements, forces the viewer to sit and watch the dark power of the
human animal. As the film continues to unfold it becomes clear that
Alex was pregnant, thus further damning the audience to emotional
distress.
The mise-en-scene is
not the only tool by which Noe creates emotional and physiological
distress. “For sixty minutes of its running time, a barely
perceptible but aggravating bass rumble was recorded...at 27 hertz...
[that induces] unease, and after prolonged exposure, physical
nausea.” (Palmer 29) This tone increases the discomfort created by
both the narrative as well as the experimental camera movements. It
is for this reason that Irreversible
is hard to critique. It becomes hard to sit through, not out of
boredom, but sheer discomfort and pain.
The
New French Extremity movement also tends to cross boundaries of
various social movements such as feminism. Pascal Laugiers' Martyrs
(2008)
has been judged for destroying the female form while still being
“lesbian chic” (Whittle 1) The film features a cult that believes
that suffering through torture is a path to enlightenment. As a
result, they kidnap a well-meaning girl to torture her relentlessly.
At the surface, the extreme violence caused by males to the female
form may seem exploitative and almost reminiscent of traditional
Hollywood slasher films.
What the film actually does is reconsider violence towards women,
thus transforming a seemingly anti-female film into a feminist one.
“Laugier forces the viewer to question pop culture's views
concerning acceptable types of violence...Laugier subverts this
tendency towards the viewer experiencing a voyeuristic thrill through
his unflinching depiction of Anna [the main character's] suffering”
(Green 23) This challenges the very Hollywood way of making horror
films.
This
anti-Hollywood film style is almost reminiscent of the French New
Wave, which sought to move cinema away from the studio system and
into a more realistic sphere. Yet New French Extremity is
post-national in nature. Many of these films, Martyrs
and
Irreversible
included
reference and draw from various other international cinematic forms.
This harkens back to basic Cahiers
du Cinema viewpoints.
“The Cahiers
critics
were very open about their love for American films... when they later
went on to become directors-auteurs- of the nouvelle
vague
they would quote freely from the films they had studied.” (Hagman
35) This is seen clearly in Godard's Breathless
(1960)
where the main character mimics Humphrey Bogart's mannerisms. Thus,
New French Extremity has striking similarities to various other major
film movements within France.
In
fact one of the landmark horror films of France, Georges Franju's
Eyes Without a
Face can
be looked at as the jumping off point for French bodily horror. The film
graphically depicts a face transplant and deals with intense subject
matter such as child mutilation. New French Extremity has much more
of a link to traditional French cinema than that of “torture porn”
popular in Hollywood, which receive horrible critical reaction due to
both graphic exploitative scenes and poor film making techniques.
With
other films in the New French Extremity movement resorting to
progressive types of techniques similar to that of Irreversible
to further push their themes, it
becomes clear why critics and scholars may veer away from the genre.
The very thing artistic value that makes the films successful is the
very thing that pushes those who would find the value away.
Although,
these films do hold a weight within the film making community. The
films explicitly have had an impact on international cinema. Other
films have been met with similar critical distaste such as Lars Von
Triers' Antichrist (2009)
which features an arthouse film
style and a sexually violent narrative has been assaulted for
“inherently misogyrustic [sic]” (Green 2) This assault is not
unlike the one against Laugier's Martyrs.
Japan's Takashi Miike Audition
(1999) has been met with critical distaste for his style of Japanese
exploitation cinema. These international films could easily fall
under the banner of New French Extremity. All hold tremendous
intellectual and artistic values, yet suffer from the same critical
negligence that films like Irreversible experience.
Even
when facing critical discourse, these films are all successful within
the cinematic world. They all meet a cult audience who embrace them.
Some seek transgressive style films, while others seek to chronicle
the further evolution of French cinema. With “torture porn” films
remain popular in Hollywood, the Extremity movement will be met with
broader audiences. This allows these hybrid arthouse films to
flourish within the international market, allowing for France to
continue its dominance as the artistic center for cinema. While the
New French Extremity may never reach a worldwide mainstream audience,
it will be met with legions of cinephiles seeking to witness a
movement akin to the French New Wave. It is through this cult
atmosphere, and not the resistant critical community, that the
movement will remain strong and carry a legacy regardless of it's
transgressive nature.
Works Cited:
Austin, Guy. Contemporary French Cinema : An Introduction.
Manchester, UK; New York; New York: Manchester University Press ;
Distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
/z-wcorg/. Web.
Beugnet, Martine. Cinema and Sensation : French Film and the Art
of Transgression. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
2007. /z-wcorg/. Web.
"Flesh & Blood: Sex and Violence in Recent French Cinema."
Artforum International 42.6 (2004): 126-32. Web.
Green, Amy M. (2011) “The French Horror Film Martyrs and the
Destruction, Defilement, and Neutering of the Female Form” Journal
of Popular Film and Television, 39” 1, 20-28
GREEN, NICHOLAS. "The New French New Wave?" Bright
Lights Film Journal.67 (2010): 1-4. Web.
Hagman, Hampus. "‘Every Cannes Needs its Scandal’: Between
Art and Exploitation in Contemporary French Film." Film
International (16516826) 5.5 (2007): 32-41. Web.
Keesey, Douglas. "Split Identification: Representations of Rape
in Gaspar noé's Irréversible and Catherine Breillat's A Ma
Sæur!/Fat Girl." Studies in European Cinema 7.2 (2010):
95-107. Web.
Palmer, Tim. "Style and Sensation in the Contemporary French
Cinema of the Body." Journal of Film & Video 58.3
(2006): 22-32. Web.
Wittle, Peter. “Martyrs” The Sunday Times.
<http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article5975859.ece>
March 29, 2009. Web.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)