[FOOT] Film Festival Experience

Having spent some time at music festivals, I was interested to see how a film one would go. Seeing as films are presented a bit differently than films are, I was expecting it to be a lot different but still under the same "festival" ethos in its presentation. I was mainly correct, and I really enjoyed the experience.

Paying $12 for a ticket to a movie sucks real hard, but at least it was a good movie and the atmosphere was solid. I actually didn't order my ticket online like most of my classmates did, but I also wasn't super picky with what I wanted to go see. It's always nice to be downtown. As much as people rag on Cleveland, it could be worse -- we could be Detroit. I found the only thing that bothered me was that they didn't seat movies until 15 minutes before. It does make sense, though, because there are so many movies being shown and only so much room to play them all.

Will I go back? Probably not. I'm not really a film person. I like books and music, but I am just not a visually stimulated individual, so most movies bore me and I see no artistic or intelligent value in them. Maybe if a friend of mine drags me to one, but other than that, this was more than enough film festival experience for me. Good times, for sure.

[FOOT] Film Festival: The Children of Chabannes Review

Personal Issues: I'm a sucker for documentaries. I don't care much for regular films, but I really like documentaries because they're factual. I often find a lot of the more modern ones (think Michael Moore) to be a bit scare-tactic oriented if focused on political issues, but in general, I just love watching documentaries. I can't say I'm particularly interested in World War II, but I am always interested in a good story, and The Children of Chabannes was great. It was a very heartfelt and it bled with authenticity. I couldn't help but feel for those involved and how touching it was. It was a very realistic view of what was going on in that town.

Technique: The film was mainly comprised of interviews with different people -- very common for a documentary. It's not actors reading from a script, rather human beings telling their story. It wasn't filled with fancy CGI and Michael Bay-like explosions. It spent its time really telling a story about a real world event.

Acting: Because this is a documentary, the people in the film were not "actors" because they weren't acting anything out. They said what they felt and shared their knowledge on the situation at hand.

Plot: "A tale of courage, resilience and love set during WWII, The Children of Chabannes tells the story of how the people of Chabannes, a tiny village in unoccupied France, chose action over indifference and saved the lives of 400 Jewish refugee children. Filmmaker Lisa Gossels returns to Chabannes with her father and uncle, two of the 400 children who were saved. Through intimate interviews with her father and the other "children" of Chabannes, the filmmakers recreate the joys and fears of daily life in that village. We see how this oasis of hope is shattered in August of 1942, when the war reaches the doorsteps of the chateau where the children lived. Through accounts by the extraordinary teachers who taught and loved these children, this lyrical and moving film shows the remarkable efforts made by the citizens of Chabannes, who risked their lives and livelihoods to protect these children, simply because they felt it was the right thing to do." -www.childrenofchabannes.org.

Themes: Beyond the plot theme of saving Jews from Nazi Germany, The Children of Chabbanes really focuses on acceptance and harmony. It's a testament that people can have different views and lifestyles and be together and work together without need for violence. The man who saved all 400 of those Jewish children, Felix Chevrier, was the beacon of that lighthouse and really shows the compassion a human really can have. It was nothing less than touching and reenforces the ideals of solidarity.

Genre: Historial documentary/Jewish Film.

Representation: The film represents as factual of an account of an event as possible. By using interviews, it doesn't allow for a creator bias and isn't a work of fiction.

Ideology: I think this basically ties to the themes of the film. Because it's a documentary. It focuses on Jewish culture, so those ideologies are brought forth, along with the theme of solidarity and caring for your fellow human in times of war.

[Foot] Great Films Post: Film Theory and Censorship

With so much in 129 pages, I chose two different sections of interest to focus on: The first is a brief overview of Film Theory and the second being Censorship.

(A brief history of Film Censorship. View a larger version here.)

Having seen several of the films listed during the first paragraph of movies that were censored in schools during the first wave of censorship, I honestly wasn't that surprised. Two of the films that I had seen that were listed were The Lottery and Bonnie and Clyde. The first of these I can definitely see being censored in a school. The film is based off the short story by Shirley Jackson and is, to be frank, quite gruesome. Being a short story, it doesn't offer much insight into the actual thematic details that a longer novella or novel could offer on the consequences and intricacies of the The Lottery. Instead, in its short length, it is just a haunting piece of shocking literature with little appetite for more depth. While an interesting discussion, it's basically the story of stoning someone to death for tradition's sake, so banning the film version of this does not surprise me. The second film, Bonnie and Clyde, is the story of the famous crime duo. While most of the film is just about that, the last scene of the movie is overbearingly bloody. This scene alone I could see being reason for it being banned in schools.

The section goes on to talk about the history of censorship and the basic fights for and against it, but not in too much detail, and were fairly obvious. Those for were parents who felt they should have a say, those against fought using the first amendment. Nothing was a surprise in either of these statements. But, this did get me thinking about my own view on censorship in the classroom for film and literature.

During our discussions on censorship in all of my education classes, I have staunchly fought against almost every single case of censoring a book citing the educational process in some way or that it isn't really all that touchy of a subject or something of that nature. The point being, I have always been very against censoring a teacher's choices in literature. But I'm now contradicting that ideal I've had by agreeing with these censorships. I definitely think both those films are rightfully censored. They're gruesome and serve no educational purpose from them. But does this mean that my viewpoint is skewed when it comes to literature? Or is there truly a distinct difference between the films and the literature I support?

I don't actually have the answers to these questions, but I'm definitely contemplating them these days. If I see the legitimacy in film censorship, what differentiates it from literature censorship?

Currently, my main argument rests on the difference between visual stimulation and written word. The way a film portrays something visually has a defined and concrete image to it, forcing it to be offensive if it hits the right emotive spots. Language, on the other hand, is a bit more amorphous than that. But then what about something like the Huck Finn censorship?

Is the word nigger automatically offense like a bloddy scene at the end of Bonnie and Clyde? I currently don't think so, but I definitely need to reevaluate that.

---------

In the section on Film Theory, I was most drawn to Marixsm, which focused on film in an idealogical manner and believed that it was an "instrument for social change" (pg. 66, Costanzo) Because of my main focus on literature, I most relate to this because it is how I view literature. By viewing film in this way, it shows how the writers, producers, and everyone else in the film reflect a current state of social norms or a revolt against them. Even in fictionally based films, they reflect their time period and are used to help perpetuate or change society itself.

I find this to be a very applicable and relatable angle to view film because it's also an important aspect of literature. By using images, film can give a more vivid view of life and really strike an audience member in a different, and perhaps stronger, manner than words can. These can help move the wheels of social change or help keep them stagnant. The marxist focus on how images evoke emotions plays well into affecting social roles and norms because it will help motivate people to think in a certain way because it is focused on exactly that.

What I am not sure of is how a marxist point of view would see documentaries, since they are directly meant to influence social change. Are they just the ultimate purpose of a marxist film critic, perhaps? I guess I'd have to study more film from critical view points to have a better understanding of this.

Several of the other theories interested me, such as Realism/Antirealism and semiotics, but didn't seem to delve too deep into them. In fact, most of the chapter felt very uninspired to me. Having read entire books on critical literary theory, I really wanted more information on each theory and how it works and famous criticizers of each theory, etc. Some of the more popular ones like Feminist, Psychoanalytic, and Cultural Studies got a full page or so, but it didn't even delve into the intricacies enough.

I think that all of this information can be applied in the classroom, though. Just like literary theory, film theory is putting on a particular lens and looking at a piece of work through it and then analyzing it using that perspective. Perhaps this "light" version of each lens is enough information to use directly with a high school student to get them thinking in different ways about films. I'll definitely be holding onto this book and have a sticky note on this section for future use in the classroom if/when I show a film and to hopefully help stimulate student thought in different manners.