CNM: Edge of Hollywood Cinema

Independent filmmakers were big way back in Hollywood. Being an independent filmmaker is really hard; first off, the budget? Second, how will you make your film go far enough for you and your film to be recognized?

These independent filmmakers want to be independent, and being independent, they choose everything for their films; the style of directing, the narration, the plot and so on. And what’s another challenge for them is to be known in the film industry even if they are just indie film directors.

One thing about independent filmmakers want is uniqueness. 

Being mainstream; it’s a big no no for these independent filmmakers. Expressing their own way of directing and through it, they can even express their opinions through their films. They would’ve been nobody if they did go mainstream with the films.

I was fascinated with the African-American stereotyping, even in films. Before, African americans were not allowed to have a bed scene. They weren’t allowed to have an all black cast. It was pretty obvious that racism was present and thick before in the film industry.

Independent filmmakers just want to show what they got; and how they do it, is up to them. They can use the most unique concepts in filmmaking, with just a short amount of budget. 

CNM: Mowelfund Tour

Last September 27, our block (and some other blocks) were given the chance to visit Philippines' very own Mowelfund or the Movie Workers Welfare Foundation, which is obviously an organization for the benefits of those who work in the film industry in our country.

Our guest speaker was none other than Mowelfund's current president, veteran actress Boots Anson-Roa. She gave us a talk on how Mowelfund works, what are it's basics, and every information we need to know about said organization.

She told us that being in the film industry, most especially if you are only backstage, is hard work. She said that while being in the spotlight is very hard, it is also fulfilling once you did a job well done. She also gave us a brief description of the happenings inside when there are cameras rolling and actors/actresses acting. I found out that Mowelfund was actually founded by Joseph Estrada aka "Erap", and that he was the one who started this way back. Their organization provides benefits for the workers of Philippine film industry, including their hospital expenses, death benefits, and so on. Also, they get their funds from MMFF or the Metro Manila Film Festival, yearly. They also have some sorts of fundraising for other purposes.

Now, going back to Mowelfund itself, when I first entered the building, I was really fascinated which is why I forgot to take pictures myself (I did pose for my friends' cameras; but I never remembered taking from my own). Ms. Anson-Roa mentioned that a lot of costumes and props that were used in films and TV shows before are stored and preserved in Mowelfund, and I did see it.

I also saw (and even held) some of the equipments that they use way back, when technology was still undergoing process. The clappers, the heavy and old video cameras; they were all fascinating, to think that they were used before, and in comparison to what we use in films right now... Kudos to them for making Cinema a good work, even before advanced technology.

In a way, it's like I timetravelled way back. I saw before my very eyes, the transition of the history of the Philippine Cinema. Most of it are old photos of the then actors and actresses of the times, e.g Boots Anson-Roa, Amalia Fuentes, Eddie Garcia, Alma Moreno, Gloria Romero, Susan Roces, and so on.

I saw the costumes that famous actors/actresses wore as their character suits before, like Vilma Santos' famous Darna bra costume, FPJ's Panday sword, and other costumes and props.

Lastly, outside there is a sort of Hall of Fame, wherein current TV stars have their own life-sized stands, where you can take pictures.

Mowelfund tour was probably the highlight of my September; I learned a lot, even just by looking and reading, and of course who wouldnt miss a chance to see the Boots Anson-Roa like, 2 feet away from you? It was a huge privilege to be there.

CNM: German Expressionism

Basically, from what I've seen and watched and researched in the internet about the German Expressionism, is that it's a style or sort that has contrasting properties, mostly the contrast dark and light, of colors black, white and gray.

German Expressionism is quite easy to understand. First would be the striking difference of dark and light portrayed in G.E. films. Most of German Expressionism categorized films are black and white (if not all). I even mistook German Expressionism films as all horror movies, but that's not the case. It's just because of the morbidity and eeriness of the films which make it "horror-like".

Most films I've seen that are under the German Expressionism category are rather dark, gloomy, void of happiness. The storylines of films are serious and has little to no humor at all (unless you find a creepy movie like "Dracula" funny, then it's your take), and the editing (if there is) are just basic.

It's almost like every German Expressionism film is categorized under horror, but only 'almost', and it's probably due to the mandatory black and white screen. We watched a sample clip of Dracula, and I admit it gave me the chills, specially with being in black and white; somehow it adds to the appeal.

CNM: Chien Andalou film

I can't really recall if that's the title of the film, but I hope it's very similar to it, or at least sounds like it.

Anyways, to go straight to the point, this film is a sample of French Surrealist film. Now, going to the details of the movie, it's a silent film, with no dialogues whatsoever. I must say that the plot, if you can call it that, is just weird. In all honesty I never understood what the storyline is really all about, but it involves a man, who seemed to have a twin or maybe an alter ego that came from the future (?), and a woman who the man ravishes or has sexual feelings for. I won't waste my time telling you MY point of view of the storyline, but the important thing is that, I realized that, this is how French Surrealist films work.

French Surrealist, based on this film, are weird, full of nonsense and has no plot. Check on both parts, and all I can say is that it made me react aggressively to the film; there are certain scenes which are disturbing but fun (for me!) to watch, and I never did hesitate to shout out loud, to scream, to laugh, and to cry out in horror. (Sample would be when they sliced an eye; CREEPY!)

So basically that's all; it's a French Surrealist film that I guess is worth watching, IF you are into weird and chaotically plotted films.



THE SLICING OF THE EYE ->

CNM: French Impressionism & Surrealism (1918-1930)

The French Impressionism & Surrealism started when World War I was the reason why the already growing french film industry went to the drain. Literally every French film makers experienced hell. After that, Hollywood films (from America of course) became all the rage in France. And of course, patriotism strikes and suddenly France tried copying the styles of the American films. Young directors of France are the ones who were being pushed and encouraged to go against the American movement of films. Most of them think that film is an art and it should be pure and not to be borrowed from literature or theatres.

 Impressionist films are more on pyschologically based, as from what I've seen. They have this thing to make the viewers "feel" what they are feeling through they overly emotional acting, and their shots in point of view mode. They used a lot of blurry and misty shots to depict one's thoughts, ideas, and inner feelings. Examples of these are the closeup of eyes, facial expressions, etc. Also when there is a particularly violent scene coming, the shots in between are usually flashing faster and faster, making it more suspenseful (though I have no idea for what reason they do that). Also, impressionist films involves a lot of manipulation of time scenes, like for example of this is their overused usage of flashbacks (white cloudiness of screen before the "flashback"), dream-like flashbacks, daydreams and even their mental/psychological conditions/or what they are imagining. It has a strong sense of plot and has a storyline. 

On the other hand, the Surrealist are more on the other side of it; it's sort of the flip coin of the French Impressionism. Morbid scenes, mostly disturbing and very creepy, they use  the anti-narrative type (no one talking/narrating), therefore most of it are silent films or just having a simple background music for effect, and it attacks causality and borders on weirdness; Read my review on Chien Andalou film to better understand French Surrealist.

CNM: Notes, French Noir

My take on French Noir/Things I noticed:

First of, the women's position changed in society. They were clearly portrayed as the protagonists for once, or as the deadly and ridiculously sexy antagonist; either way, they were seen as powerful and a force to deal with, so if a strong woman is dangerous; therefore she is more ''attractive''.

(an example of a literal femme fatale)

The protagonists of film noir are characterized as dark and morbid human beings, a rarity for the "heroes" of a story.

Film noir is sort of related to German Expressionism, but then they are also completely different from each other. It's just probably the essence of dark and light and the dark theme that makes them similar, since back then night shots or night scenes were all the rage. Film noir is "THE ESSENCE OF REALITY", and it deals mostly with plots that circle around the sex, money and crimes. Films of this kind displays the dark and inhuman side of life or to say, the reflection of the dark side in life and also the dark side of human nature. With the dark and morbid things in French noir, they also have a weird way of presenting Hell; I saw one portraying Hell as an underground sewer.

Also, weird and unlikely love story grabs attention from the audience, as the "uniqueness" of these couples are what are to die for in these films.

Film noir also has this thing that what you see is not actually what is happening but rather it's something that is shadowing the real happening (?). If you do not get this line then I beg your pardon; it's my head that's confused but that's how I see it.

With one word, I can describe Film Noir as: DARK. Specially when Film Noir actually means BLACK FILM.

CNM: Film School Generations

As a director, you should know that uniqueness is everything. You won't make it big out there in the cinema and film world if you're just a copycat who can't even produce/create your own storyline/plot/scenery/theme of your own. Though sometimes it would be a wise idea to get some inspiration or some details from the old masterminds of film itself. Directors all have different points of views on how this works, on how the setting will be produced, on how the characters will progress through the story, on how the theme will fit the plot.

So what are the different "kinds" of directors in which we can get ideas from?

John Milius and Martin Scorsese are two examples of directors who thinks that films should be for expressing what they want, and for profit. They both do it for the money that will be on the other side, and also inserting their own opinions in a form of a film. In other words, they don't really care about the opinion/reaction/feedback of their audience, so long as they have money income from it and that they expressed their ideas freely. 

Contrary to the two directors above, Brian de Palma always think of his audience because the audience's reactions are what makes him happy and content. For him, the audience is the receiver of the films, and therefore their reactions/comments about it are very important. Without the audience, there is no need for him to make films. The audience is considered his "target market" in which his objective is for the audience to appreciate his works.

  George Lucas, the great director who made Star Wars (along with Steven Spielberg) became famous for his many works. He is the kind of director who isn't really that passionate and dedicated about his work, because he never really wanted to be a director but after curiosity got the better of him, decided to push through with production and film. What's more surprising is that he never actually expected the huge sucess of Star Wars, meaning that he never really intended it to be a hard sell film, and that he was justing testing the waters of film; he was using this field as a sort of practice.

Lastly, my favorite, the almighty Steven Spielberg who became really famous due to his topnotcher films like Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Jaws, . He's the kind of director who really thinks about his audience and what they want. He caters to the need of the audience, most specially with him having a lot of special effects in his films, making his films more interesting and fun to watch. He also has the most exciting films among the directors listed. 

Some directors may only think of themselves, some may like to hear what his audience has to say about his work, but all in all, they have different styles and techniques in directing artistically, making films a variety show which is fun to watch, indeed. 

*Personal favorite would be Steven Spielberg.