• Steadicam is a brand of camera stabilizer mounts for motion picture cameras invented by Garrett Brownand introduced in 1975 by Cinema Products Corporation.
• It mechanically isolates the operator’s movement, allowing for a smooth shot, even when the camera moves over an irregular surface.
• The most widely used systems worldwide are Glidecam and its analogues such as Beestab, Easy Step, Flycam, Stabicam, MY Steadicam and some others.
• Steadicam operators cultivated an invisible style to formally mimic a kind of faster and cheaper dolly shot and to mitigate the apparatus’s uniquely embodied quirks.
• The Steadicam shot, like its operator, should be invisible to the audience.
• To operators, the only thing organic about Steadicam is that a human body operates it. Its mystification as a term by directors, scholars, or critics seems to point to a Steadicam shot that calls itself out as such and fails to hide under the invisibility of a dolly shot or an ultrasmooth handheld shot.
• A brand of camera stabilizer mounts for motion picture cameras
• Invented by Garrett Brown and introduced in 1975 by Cinema Products Corporations
  • Garrett Brown worked in Philadelphia ad began his filmmaking in the early 1970s
  • Sold his prototype to the first company he showed it to
• Mechanically isolates the operator’s movement, allowing for a smooth shot
  • Previously dolly tracks or cranes were used to take shots on the move
• Enables “fluid” cinematic movement
• “One key feature of film consists in its power to bodily engage the viewer. Previous research has suggested lens and camera movements to be among the most effective stylistic devices involved in such engagement” (ncbi scholarly article quote)

Sources

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steadicam (Links to an external site.)
• https://agreatreviews.com/top-best-dslr-steadicam/ (Links to an external site.)
• https://www.academia.edu/34472788/_Dancing_Flying_Camera_Jockeys_Invisible_Labor_Craft_Discourse_and_Embodied_Steadicam_and_Panaglide_Technique_from_1972_to_1985
• https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/how-and-when-to-use-a-steadicam-shot/ (Links to an external site.)
• https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/best-video-camera-stabilizers/ (Links to an external site.)
• https://www.productexpert.com/best-dslr-camera-stabilizer-steadicams/ (Links to an external site.)
• https://nofilmschool.com/2016/09/how-to-be-a-steadicam-operator (Links to an external site.)
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6415856/

The Hollywood Star System was a method used by movie studios to create stars on their terms.  Studios would sign on young and promising actors and then they would build an image for them that might not have actually fit who they were as a person.  Studios did this as a way to better promote themselves and the actors that worked for them.  An example of this is Rock Hudson.  Rock’s image was that he was the perfect man.  Rock’s real name was Roy Fitzgerald and he was gay.  That’s not to say that those two things wouldn’t make him the perfect man, it’s just not how the studio wanted to portray him.

Studios would oftentimes write up contracts for their actors that would help bind them to the image that the studio wanted to create.  The contracts would have morality clauses about not using drugs, not committing adultery, or anything else that might taint them in the public eye.  Studios would even go to great lengths to maintain the images of their actors.  For instance, a journalist caught wind about Rock Hudson being secretly gay so his agent gave information about another actor that had a secret criminal past.

 

The concept here is that studios were able to increase their profits by cherry picking actors and turning them into whatever they needed to become more successful.

I do not believe that this concept exists in other media platforms.  In fact it doesn’t really exist in the Hollywood platform anymore either.   In 1919 Charlie Chaplin, along with other major movie stars, chose to start up their own company so that they could build themselves up how they saw fit.

If the Hollywood Star System never existed I believe that actors and actresses would have been much happier working with the studios.  Instead many of them felt like they were being unfairly controlled and chose to go their own way.

This concept matters because it highlights how money hungry the movie industry can be.  Studios used their actors like puppets in any way that they could that they thought would bring in more money or improve their image.

 

https://www.classichollywoodcentral.com/background/the-star-system/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3815272?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/05/28/hollywoods-star-system-at-a-cubicle-near-you

 

Pick Up on South Street is a classic crime film.  The plot is centered around a pickpocket named Skip who unknowingly stole important films from a woman’s purse on the subway.  He believed he was just doing his typical pickpocket routine and was unaware that the films he stole contained scientific information meant to be given to Communists working against the United States.  The woman he stole from was under surveillance by a couple of detectives as they were trying to catch whoever she was supposed to deliver the films to.  

    Each character portrayed in the film was either a criminal, helping a criminal, or was law enforcement.  The woman with the films, Candy, didn’t know what she was delivering. However, her old boyfriend Joey was aware of the information and was having her deliver it to try and keep himself out of hot water.  Candy didn’t know that Joey was working with communists.    

    In the film, Candy is clearly the protagonist.  The entire plot line is centered around her actions to find the films and get them back.  Once she finds them it turns into her dealing with the consequences of interacting with dangerous people as well as doing illegal activities.  Skip is the antagonist as he thwarts Candy’s attempts to either find the films or buy them back from him. 

    The narrative of the story is done in chronological order from when the films are taken to when they are returned to the police.  It first shows Candy in the subway when she has her wallet stolen from her purse by Skip. Then it goes on to introduce the detectives that were following her and shows them bring in another character, Mo, to help them find the possible pickpocket.  Once the storyline gets rolling it switches back and forth between interactions with the cops and Skip, Candy telling Joey about the lost films, Candy finding Mo and then finding Skip, and eventually it all rounds back up to the detectives and finding the films.  The story is told in this way to keep the audience engaged with what’s going on. It also helps everything flow smoothly and make sense.

    The actors and actresses in the film did a great job playing their characters.  Candy and Skip, the protagonist and antagonist, seem to have an attraction to one another but they have different motivations behind the films.  Once Candy learned what was on the films she was horrified to know that she almost helped communists with an attack against her country. She was a very empathetic character.  Skip, however, was more concerned with the money aspect of the arrangement. He knew everything had a price and since the films were very valuable to someone he knew he could raise the price tremendously.  He didn’t seem to care much at all what he was selling, just that he benefited financially from it. 

    The actors chosen for the cast were somewhat well known.  Elizabeth Jean Peters, the woman that played Candy, had participated in A handful of films like Captain from Castile, It Happens Every Spring, and Deep Waters by the time she was cast for Pick Up on South Street.  Richard Widmark had also participated in a few movies before playing the part of Skip. He seems to have played in movies that were also dramas or action type movies. The importance of using the actors that they chose is that they know the actor will play the part really well.  Also, if the star is up and coming a studio probably saw them as a good investment opportunity for building fan bases in the future.  

Crime Films

 

Crime movies are usually TV movies with police activities. Crime movies can also be called police movies. Different from gangster movies: crime movies focus on the detective to catch criminals, crime and crime to prevent the abhorrent immoral all the drama process; Gangster movies focus on the freedom and right of assembly and association, and the rationalization and heroism of gangs’ struggle for power and profit. Police detectives’ detection and prevention of crimes is the plotline, even without police detectives. Crime movies and gangster movies are action movies. They are commercial movies for the public to buy, watch and entertain(Leitch 2002, 84).

 

The scope of crime movies is relatively broad, but the director has a more focused aspect in the shooting process. Taken, for example, is a crime movie. But it focuses more on the rescue process to show the audio-visual feeling of martial arts scenes, so it is more considered as an action film. Crime films can also be called police and bandits films. In all drama films, there must be both crime and detective investigation.

Watching crime films gives a sense of drive and danger. Such films are quite amusing, the crime may seem like something quite trivial. You can not watch a crime film without experiencing strong emotions towards the hero – either sympathy and concern for his/her fate, or the strongest hatred and desire that everything went wrong with the character.

Martin Scorsese, Guy Ritchie, David Fincher, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, created dozens of films on this subject, are recognized as kings of crime genre. And among legendary directors, the same actors are often the heroes and inspirers. Martin Scorsese – Leonardo DiCaprio, Guy Ritchie – Jason Statham and Brad Pitt, Quentin Tarantino – Harvey Keitel and John Travolta, Robert Rodriguez, Antonio Banderas, Johnny Depp.  They weave a deadly (often literally) seriousness with humor.

 

 

Source

Leitch, Thomas M. Crime Movies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Internet resource.

https://researchguides.dartmouth.edu/filmgenres/crimefilms (Links to an external site.)

http://screenprism.com/insights/article/what-is-the-difference-between-film-noir-and-the-crime-film

 

Low-Key Lighting

“The term key light is the source of two commonly used adjectives: low key and high key… These expressions come from cinematography. When cinematographers, also known as directors of photography (DPs) use a low proportion of fill light to key light,… is called low-key lighting. The lower key the light, the more shadowy the effect. The distorting, spooky nature of extremely low-key lighting is perfectly illustrated by a trick almost every child has played: in the dark, you shine a flashlight up at your face from below your chin. That flashlight was your key light, and since there was no fill light at all, the proportion of fill to key was as low as you could get” (47).

Source: Textbook Definition from Ed Sivok’s Film Studies: An Introduction (Film and Culture Series)

Author, Terry O’Rourke, reveals how we can be a bit ambiguous in our approach to lighting and how that is essentially what low-key lighting is all about. It is about the ambiguity, which is a wonderful way to invoke a sense of mystery and intrigue within your artistic medium, in this case film, to your audience. He then explains the simplicity in creating such lighting:

“You can do this with any existing lighting situation, provided you turn most of them off. If there is no existing lighting – even better. Set up your lighting designs with the idea that less is more, because with low-key lighting you are lighting for shadows. One light in the middle of a room and you have all the shadows you could ever want. Move that light around and you can put the shadows wherever you want. Use a reflector along with that one light and you can create all the drama one could ever need in a scene. The point here is that low-key lighting involves shadows just as much as it does light.”

High key lighting is used to produce images that encourage an optimistic, upbeat reaction. The photos come out youthful and simple but sophisticated. Low key lighting, on the other hand, produces images that are the opposite of high key photos. The low key technique uses a lot of darker tones, shadows, and blacks.

High Key Lighting:

• Bright and high lights dominated by ranges of whites
• Very minimal blacks and mid-tones
• Optimistic, upbeat, youthful, light, and airy
• Mostly used in portrait, wedding, newborn and fashion photography

Low Key Lighting:

• Uses a lot of deep blacks, darker tones, and shadows
• Very minimal amount of whites and mid-tones
• Reduces lighting to produce images with striking contrasts
• Produces dramatic and mysterious photos
• Features a lot of shadows

With low key lighting, you can create incredibly sensual images (within the dimensions of photography), full of mysterious atmosphere and drama. Low key lighting creates stunning contrasts in your images, along with mood and mystery. It gives depth, feeling, and emotion — and is an invigorating challenge for novice and professional photographers alike. Traditional photography lighting is called three-point lighting: key light, a fill light, and a backlight to illuminate the subject. Low key photography, on the other hand, uses only a key light, which is optionally controlled with a fill light or a simple reflector. This means that shadows remain in the dark and only the subject is highlighted. Low key lighting tends to heighten the sense of alienation and suspense, and hence is commonly used in the film noir and horror genres.

 

Source:

https://www.videomaker.com/article/c13/15235-the-art-of-low-key-lighting

https://contrastly.com/understanding-the-basics-of-high-key-vs-low-key-lighting/

https://skylum.com/blog/low-key-lighting-photography-tips

 

Digital Filmmaking has had a rush of excitement aswell as negative remmarks in the last 10 years or so.  Steve Mcqueen states “all this technology, it’s changing every five minuets”. He says “because everyone is making money out of it” and this is not an overstatement. Comparing digital cinema now to 2010 we can see a massive change in how special effects and filimg can be improved in such a short period of time. For some people in the industry moving on from carrying heavy film cans and the use of diffrent size film and other aspects of using film means the end of true movie making. Although we have moved in the direction  of digital film, in 2014 six out of nine Oscar nominees were shot entirely on film. Using film compared to digital methods can still be more rewarding especially when the hard work is put in. But digital filimg takes less time, less equipment, and has brought the standard of movies to a new level.

personel

hhtps://nytimes/how-digital-ischanging-35mmfilm//

journalstic

https://newrepublic.com/article/119431/how-digital-cinema-took-over-35mm-film

scholalry

https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-digital/