Is That Real: Smoke, Shoot & SnoRt

Thinking about the logistics of our upcoming film, Stopover City, an important question is how will we show the marijuana. Although in Ithaca smoking weed seems to be a very common occurrence among students and locals alike, it still is illegal. So I took to the internet to find out how they fake actors using drugs.

Of course alcohol has a very easy solution; you can just make non-alcoholic drinks for your actors to slug down. But in thinking about how many films or television shows show their actors smoking weed, snorting lines of cocaine or even shooting up heroine, there are a variety of solutions.

                                                             Marijuana Alternatives:

If at first you don't succeed, try to replicate illegal drugs again. Ben Sinclair and Katja Blichfeld, the creators of High Maintenance, first tried using herbal cigarettes. They would slice the props open and pack it into bowls. The fake cigarettes they use are notorious for being very unpleasant, so they switched to an alternative. Once they tried using legal smokable herb blends, it became their choice alternative. For the baggies the dealer doles out they actually used cotton balls soaked in glue and covered with dried parsley, cilantro and rosemary.

Trying to get a catepillar high in Pineapple Express. 

Jenji Kohan's hit show Weeds, has an entire art department to create fake marijuana. The huge quantities of weed needed in that show called for a very realistic looking substitute. They custom made their supply using moss and other plants. Then they spray-painted and bound them together while also painting individual tiny hairs. As for the grow houses, they actually just use fake plastic plants.

Basically a (very good) movie about a bunch of drugs. 

I'm sure our solution will be more low-budget like the first. In reading a few different articles about substituting drugs for film, here's a quick bullet list of alternatives.

• Cocaine: powdered lactose for snorting, a mix of cornstarch and baby powder as a prop

(Sometimes they will even coat the inside of the straw with vaseline so most of the powder doesn't go up the actor's nose.)

• Heroin: milk and vitamin powder blend, when it needs to be heated they use sugar and baking soda

• Ecstasy Pills: sugar placebos

• Magic Mushrooms: freeze dried fungus

• Crack Rocks: "created by dropping globs of krazy glue into a pile of baking soda

Enough about drugs, have a fun weekend kids.

Why didn't Richard Linklater win Best Director in the Oscars?

One of the biggest surprise for me in the last Oscars was when Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance won best directing over Boyhood. I saw both films and they were both what I thought were one of the best films of the year. But I had the belief that Richard Linklater would win the Oscar in the "Best Director" category over Alejandro Innaritu. I understand that the one-take filming concept of Birdman was well done and creative.

But its been done before!!




One example of a one take film is Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope"

What Richard Linklater did has never been done. For me, Boyhood was ingeniously well made and the dedication of the director to spend 12 years to make it was also astounding. What really sold me was the transitions of the characters getting older were really subtle. And the story, was relatable. I can't even imagine the careful planning that was necessary to create a film like this scheduling wise as the movie had casted actors like Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke who had prominent roles.

We follow a story of a 6 year old Mason and by the end of the film, he's all grown up going to college in a span of a 3 hours. This was a movie not only about the subtle rising speed of growing up and the roller coaster of ups and downs called life, but it also had an effect to the audience to reminisce about their past, their parents, and their childhood.

Why the only Oscar was given to Patricia Arquette for best supporting actress is beyond me. But I believe this movie shouldn't just be known for its nominations.

Light in "Heroes"

A couple weeks ago I began watching a show that my brother recommended: Heroes. The sci-fi serial drama had four seasons from 2006-2010 on NBC and was created by Tim Kring. My brother watched all four seasons, but he recommended I only watch the first one, because he says it "gets bad after that."

I knew I would like Heroes right from the get-go because I love me a good superhero story. I'm not exactly sure why, but there's something about that hero's journey formula that I find so fascinating. We spent so much time in my freshman year English class talking about archetypes, mythology, and heroes, that it sparked my interest in the genre and soon I was registering to take a mythology class my sophomore year with the same teacher.

Joseph Campbell's The Hero's Journey was one cycle I learned about in my mythology class. 

All the major characters of Season 1.

The superpowers possessed by the characters in Heroes are unique and among them are mind-reading, invincibility, intagibility (the ability to move through solid objects), flight, and the ability to take on another hero's power, among other things.

I found that the pilot for Heroes was easy to follow, despite the fact that there are many major characters. I've begun paying way more attention to color and light lately, and it's become clear to me how Heroes uses these elements to reveal details about the characters.




For example, Claire Bennett, the invincible cheerleader, lives in Odessa, Texas. She is a sweet girl, despite the identity crisis she is going through. Perhaps the warm light tells the audience that we should be rooting for her.

"Save the cheerleader, save the world" is a motif of the show.

Niki Sanders suffers from Dissociative Personality Disorder and can access super strength when her alter-ego, Jessica, is in control. The shots of Niki include many shadows, perhaps to show that there is a good side and a dark side to her.

Isaac Mendez can paint the future, but only right after he's done heroin. Many shots of him are very dark, showing how lost and confused he is feeling.

Hiro Nakamuro can alter space and time. This screenshot was taken right after he makes the second hand on his cubicle clock go back one second. I think the dim, boring, and repetitive office lights are meant to be juxtaposed with Hiro's energy and enthusiasm. He wants to get out, and eventually, he does.

Hiro right after teleporting into the future and New York City.

I think this quick ability to show a lot about the characters made the show easy to follow right from the beginning. I'm on episode 10 of season 1 right now, so hopefully I finish the season in the coming weeks. Maybe I'll watch Heroes: Reborn as well, when it comes out later this month.

*wicked piano intro* Welcome to Scranton~!

      Because humour is so very hard to duplicate, I've found myself rewatching The Office at least 40 times. I wish I was exaggerating but, then again, with my life crumbling around me, what else is there to do than laugh at a group of people with exceedingly horribly yet funny lives. In case you don't know what this classic television show is, it's a sitcom/mockumentary according to its ever-changing wikipedia page but it follows the story of a small branch of a paper company, specifically where the sales are done. Which sounds boring as hell, but somehow it's funny? We just don't know.  

      Something about this show that I adore, besides it's 20 minute style which makes you feel like you are doing a shot of comedy, is its ability for comedic timing with the use of the camera as another member of the office. You honestly feel like you are in the scene with the rest of the employees and it creates a very visceral and specific kind of comedy that people have tried to recreate before and failed. Some manage to actually use it successfully and I fully recommend those shows as well. See Parks and Rec. 

      While the shows both sit in an office and the characters are fleshed out very realistically (yet not??), the shows tend to gather a 'love it or hate it' crowd. I assume it's because it can remind people of their own office life and people either take that as positive or negative. 

Comedic timing is something that was so perfectly created in the original UK version and, personally, I think it was well recreated in the American version. After watching both more times than I wish to reveal, I've found that I almost thinking of them as two different animals even though the first few episodes have the exact same scripts, the same beats, and the same camera work. We just /don't/ know. As the series/seasons go on, the actors obviously become more in tune with how they should react with the cameras and each other and it, again in my opinion, gets better as it goes on. While that might not be true for the writing, I very much appreciate the use of the cameras for comedic effect. It's pretty rad. 

      

Frank Underwood: House of Cards and the Fourth Wall.

    House of Cards is a hit Netflix Original Series that has run from 2013 and released it's third season on Netflix as of last February. It revolves around Frank Underwood (played by Kevin Spacey) a corrupt and often maniacal politician in Washington doing anything he can to get on top. The show itself is great for so many reasons, blocking, sound, color; but I think what really grabs people's attention is the fourth wall breaks (breaks from the story directed at the audience) periodically scattered across the show. Here's a quick video to demonstrate.

   
      Fourth wall breaks, to me, are typically found in comedies and typically movie, not TV shows. The classic fourth wall break can be seen in movies like Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Space Balls, Annie Hall, ect...But to see these breaks in television I think was a new experience for me and here's why it works.
     They allow us into the world of Frank Underwood, it gives us his moves and his plays before his opponents know what's coming. By allowing this we also start to sympathize with an almost unlikeable character. It also doesn't come across as cheesy or overdone. This show has a very Shakespearean storytelling style to it, and as actors often broke the fourth wall in plays to give monologues Frank Underwood masterfully does the same in this show.
     Fourth wall breaks are an technique that can only really work when it is used tastefully and well. If it isn't the audience won't receive it. House of Cards manages to do this in the best way I have seen in a long time not only drawing us into the story more but propelling a narrative in a more interesting way.

Athletes on the Big Screen: UFC to Space Jam

We love them. We hate them. We love to hate them. However you feel, chances are that you've seen at least one movie starring a professional athlete. While some of these films are better than others, I think its safe to say that none of these 'actors' will be winning an Oscar anytime soon. It seems to me that more and more professional athletes are making their way onto the big screen each year, taking on roles that never really pan out. After reading an article announcing that UFC Women's Bantamweight World Champion Ronda Rousey will reprise Patrick Swayze's role in a remake of Roadhouse,  I just have to ask: WHY?


Rousey is a world class competitor. She is undefeated in the UFC and was even recently named "athlete of the year". What compels her to leave the fighting world and travel to Hollywood? She had a small supporting role in Fast 7, and while she was well prepared for the fight scenes, her acting was absolutely terrible. 

Rousey is not alone in her jump from the Octagon to the silver screen. From Michael Jordan in Space Jam, OJ Simpson in The Naked Gun 2 1/2: Smell the Fear, or Arnold Schwarzenegger in The Terminator; the list goes on and on. These super athletes certainly weren't hurting financially, so what factors pushed them to leave their dominant position in sports (even temporarily) and take on a role in Hollywood?

It could simply be that since these super-athletes are already household names that everyone knows and loves, making them a big ticket item for producers eager to capture the allure of a big name. A prime example of this is the Expendables films, which boasts an ensemble cast of Hollywood's most badass actors- many of whom were athletes in real life. Along that same vein, perhaps choosing athletes to star in a film is a strategy to peak the curiosity of an audience, evoking a "what is he doing there?" reaction much like the way I reacted to the recent Rousey news. 

One group that might be exempt from the issues of the athlete-actor crossover are professional wrestlers. Since the 'sport' they play is a staged event, it makes perfect sense that the athletes would also have an acting career. To me, there really isn't much of a difference anyway. It is all a staged production. This explains the success of actors like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in transitioning sole to Hollywood, a feat that no other professional athlete outside of pro wrestling can really claim. 

Regardless of how much I complain, I really don't see significant change coming anytime soon. I think the recent trend of athlete-actors is only going to continue to increase. Who knows, some day we might reach a point where these individuals can cross successfully between these two very different worlds; we could watch them at the theaters on Saturday and then again on the field on Sunday. 

My Personal Top Five Favorite TV Series

Top Five TV Series: Krystal’s Edition

• Sex and The City (1998-2004)
• This TV Series is will always and forever be a lifeline for me. I really started watching the series in middle school and then the underlying lessons like female self-assurance, confidence, and sexuality I relate and understand as an adult. This show illustrates different kinds of women and situations that women face.

• CSI: Miami (2002-2012)
• Investigation crime shows are definitely my kryptonite, and annual summer binges. This show is not just great because it’s based in my hometown but because of the great storylines that keep the show going. There’s not just one main bad guy there's many, I feel like the series (even though it is dramatized) taught me how to handle myself in certain situations. It’s shot great, the golden color corrections do remind me of home, and the series does take after the most badass investigative crime unit.

• Charmed (1998-2006)
• This was the one show that literally played from 3- 5pm Monday- Friday religiously. I remember coming home from school and instantly sitting down and watching charmed till either dinner was ready or it was time to do my homework. The idea of three sisters discovering that they are the charmed ones, and have to fight evil to protect their loved ones, and the world is pretty much spot on when it comes to grasping the audience's attention. But it was really the empathy that you can feel for each sister, coming to terms with their lives and their struggle to overcome obstacles

• Power (2014- )
• The double life is attractive and interesting to watch. The leading character is one of the wealthiest men but also a drug kingpin. When his business partner gets too hungry, an old enemy is released, and the temptation of an old flame arises James St. Patrick struggles to keep everything under control. This TV Series is very new but took the audience by storm, and enjoys leaving everyone at the end of their seat every episode. PS: This season finale literally left me overjoyed but anxious for the next season! Too much ahead.

• How to Get Away with Murder (2014- )
• Viola Davis is nothing short of exceptional and a legendary actress in my book. So naturally as her being the lead character in this TV series is enough to sell me on a great show! I have a love and attachment to each character even through their annoying stages. (If each character can appeal to you- it’s a great show) The thought of law students and a defense professor for crimes becoming tangled in a murder plot is a strong enough storyline to carry over for not just one but several seasons.

Life, sleep deprivation, and the pursuit of editing

There are many jobs on a crew that are not valued enough—script supervisor and assistant editor being two significant ones. Script supervisor keeps a written track of which takes were best, along with a description of what went on, while assistant editor goes through all of the footage and describes what’s going on in the frame, type of shot, etcetera.

Blank sample of script supervisor's daily log.

Blank sample of editor's log.

This summer I did just that—I spent a great deal of time logging footage for a professor’s reality-esque TV show. While doing so, I came to understand something truly important: there is no insignificant role when it comes to production. I went through hours of footage and mark the funny and controversial points between the couples; a very tedious task that took many hours at a time. This job is usually bestowed upon the assistant editor, as they are the ones that do the initial read of the script supervisor’s notes and choose which clips are correct. I also helped to add more detail to the script sup’s notes so my professor could use it to teach in the future.

~me~ most of the time I edit

Going into the process I thought I would like it because I enjoy editing, but I forgot about the many hours that are spent staring at a screen. A certain professor told me that when you start in the real world of post-production, logging is where you initially start. But it truly makes editing so much easier when you have a guide as to what clips are the best.

While it is not my preference, I definitely learned a lot about how to make the process of editing easier. I have great respect for those who regularly script super & log the footage.

Just for funsies, I shall leave you with a related video some of you may have already seen and can relate to:

"The Assistant Editor Song"

If it's in the Frame, or a music hook, there is no escaping The Babadook

I've been doing a fair bit of research on horror films since I've started writing the screenplay for "Fallen Angel". Primarily watching for the atmospheric elements that pull viewers from their seats and into the cinematic clutches of the spook at hand.

I started my research by putting on Netflix and watching a film that I've had on my list for some time now "The Babadook"

Now I won't spoil anything here because it's a film that I really would highly recommend watching, but for the purposes of this post I will be pulling a few frames from various parts of the film to help me illustrate my point so if you'd rather go into the film fresh then feel free to scroll on.

Now for a little background "The Babadook" is an Australian horror/thriller in which a hardworking widow unknowingly incurs the wrath of a malevolent demon known only as "The Babadook". Throughout the film we see out hero Amelia try, and occasionally fail to keep herself from losing her mind under the stress of being a single working mother as well as the target of supernatural attacks. The story alone is really well designed but where the movie really succeeded, at least in my opinion, was in cultivating a sense of helplessness especially through it's cinematography.

Helplessness

First of all the movie shows us outright the face of our shadowy assailant:

And quite a face it is. The Babadook is not an entity that wants to be seen, rather it hides in the shadows and seeps into our psyche when we are most vulnerable. Throughout the film we see the scene illustrated above play out for us over and over.

It's dark, we are alone, and our attacker could literally come from anywhere.

If you're interested in watching the film you can find it on Netflix, or through a couple of risky stream sites online. I'd advise paying special attention to the way the babadook forces a divide between the mother and her child. There are a lot of really well thought out parallels between the Mother and the Monster that I caught, and I definitely think It's a film that requires multiple viewings to fully appreciate.

Why do we use certain aspect ratios over others?

When discussing with a friend of mine which aspect ratio would be best for a cinema project he was crafting for a class, it got me pondering a few questions. For instance, just what effect does aspect ratio have on an audience that is watching visual media, specifically motion picture?

I have always found it fascinating that during my early teenage years, widescreen was such a touted feature for cinema, with claims that one can see more “stuff” due to the wider aspect ratio of the motion picture.

I am also fascinated that older technologies and methods of capturing video involved portraying it in a less rectangular format, and that cinema was the medium that introduced what we know as “widescreen.” As technology advanced, the “cinematic” widescreen aspect ratio as trickled down into less grandiose forms of video, from television, to HD camcorders, then to cellphones.

So why is a wider aspect ratio such a sacred format for high end motion picture? Is it because there is more to see horizontally than vertically? Probably, at least in motion picture. It also might make more sense in terms of production, when countless devices and rigs are set up just outside of the frame, possibly suspended overhead.

I suppose still photography works best when closer to being square (like 4x3 or 3x2), as subjects of photography can be framed vertically with as much success Widescreen, when rotated vertically, is very unappealing. With this more or less figured out, I moved to my next question.

When I went to shoot test footage with my friend, we shot in the modern television standard aspect ratio, 16x9. What was really fascinating to us when we were reviewing the footage, was that no matter what we did, we were not satisfied with the look in terms of framing until we began cropping our footage to a wider aspect ratio. Now, it was not really wider in this case, because we were removing data though our crop, however we found the image to appear more “cinematic,” and to be honest, we couldn’t really explain why. It just looked better. It may have been simply because it looked closer to what professional film is expected to look like, and nothing more.

Thinking about my own experience watching movies, I never really enjoyed the black bars that came with watching movies shot in cinemascope being portrayed on a 16x9 television. However, when watching movies in the theatre, I preferred screens that were less tall due to having to strain my neck at times to view all of the image. Could it be that professional cinema is shot in a way that accommodates viewers in a theatre? It is possible.

So while our desire to replicate the "professional" look is what influenced my friend and I to decide that we would shoot in 2.35x1, it still could make a difference, as friends of mine who see my footage with and without cropping almost alway say they prefer the cropped version.

Popular websites such as NoFilmSchool discuss in depth how determining aspect ratio comes down to what works best to aid in telling your story to an audience. I have no doubts of the aesthetic control that choosing the right aspect ratio can give a cinematographer. With that said, however, I cannot bring myself to create motion picture that strays from an industry standard. To me, my images look better in cinemascope (2.35x1), the industry standard. I am struggling to understand why the industry standard aspect ratio still is the way it is.

HIMYIM...in the 1960's

This summer I finally watched How I Met Your Mother (and in a span of 3 weeks). And let me tell you, it was one hell of an emotional roller coaster. It is set in Manhattan in both present day, and many years in the future when Ted Moseby is talking to his kids about how he met their mother. The show has everything from comedy to drama, and keeps you entertained every second of the episode. HIMYM has six main characters: Ted Moseby, a single architect looking for his soulmate; Marshall Erikson, an aspiring lawyer from Minnesota; Lily Aldrin, a kindergarten teacher and aspiring artist; Robin Scherbatsky, a career oriented journalist who Ted is in love with, and Barney Stinson, an extreme playboy who has a mysterious position at a bank. All of them always hang out at this bar named McClaren's, a sort of similar situation to Friends' Central Perk cafe.

So when it came to choosing a show to set in a different time period for my Production Design Independent Study project, my first thought was OH LORDY I NEED TO DO THIS ON HOW I MET YOU MOTHER. The professor running my study also thought it was a good idea, and told me to run with it. After much deliberation between different time periods (including the 1970's, 1990's, and even the ~future~) I decided to go with the 1960's, because it was a very prominent decade in terms of social issues, pop culture, in addition to the very distinct design style.

Part of the project is to take two characters and design their houses/costumes in that time period. To do so, I'll have to print out a script from an episode and do a character breakdown based on that. This will take the form of a COW sheet (what the characters say, what others say, what the writers say). My plan is to redesign Robin & Barney as characters from 60's, including their costumes and rooms. This will be especially cool since Robin is a reporter, so I can base a lot of her style off of reporters from the 60's (i.e. Jessica Savitch). Then Barney will be one of those high up business moguls (I am particularly excited to design his room because he always has the latest gadgets).

For period piece research, I will be using old Life magazines (on file on googlebooks) in addition to other periodicals that are at the Ithaca College Library! The library also has various large books telling of the cultural events of the 60's, which I will definitely be delving into.

I am super amped to get started on this project because I think it will be very enriching experience, in addition to building a hella cool portfolio of my own designs.

Kung Fury

Kung Fury is by far my favorite piece of cinematic work that I have seen since Interstellar. It is nothing like Interstellar, in fact it is quite the opposite. The creator David Sandberg wrote, directed and stared in this epic clusterfuck of a short film.
Kung Fury is set in 1985 on the streets of Miami. A bunch of ridiculous evens start happening, such as arcade game machines coming to life and killing people as well as Hitler coming to continental  America. All in all Kung Fury it is just a crazy film shot to be a satire on 1980s films with a bunch of ridiculous jokes. That being said, I have never laughed so hard in my life.

The entire film is filled with jokes. There is literally never a serious moment in the film from start to finish and while this may seem like a bad thing, it is truly beautiful.


While being totally unbelievable in both plot line and in appearance, I would've believed that I would hate it, however It truly amused me. It is not a deep piece, or very an expensive piece but I can say with all honesty that If you are looking to watch something you have never seen anything like before, and laugh while watching that you should watch tis movie.

Are We Having Fun Yet?!

I have yet another tv show recommendation. This one is extremely underrated and was actually cancelled after only two seasons. But, it's still a great show and has gained somewhat of a cult following. It's pretty much what happened with Arrested Development and Freaks and Geeks. Audiences don't realize how good it is until it's gone.

Party Down is about a hodgepodge group of people who work for a catering company. They work several different events which almost always turns into a hot mess. One of my favorite episodes includes them catering a porn star award show.

One main reason I believe people would be inclined to go back and watch this show is because of the amazing cast. They all bring something really special to their characters. This show is where Adam Scott kind of got his start in TV before his starring role in Parks and Recreation. 

That ~sexual tension~

His character also has a fun will they/won't they relationship with Lizzy Caplan's character (yes, she played Janis Ian in Mean Girls.)









Other key players include Ken Marino, Martin Starr, Ryan Hansen, Megan Mullally and Jane Lynch. There's also a huge array of secondary characters and cameo appearances. Some names to mention include Jennifer Coolidge, J.K. Simmons and Ken Jeong.






I love how a simple idea of cater workers explodes into a comedic gem. They openly don't care too much about their job, including the boss, and goof around every event they work. (other than when they cater the boss's high school reunion, another great episode *cough cough*)









           Anyway the writing is great and the cast is killer, so add this to your "to watch" list.

Manners Maketh Man

      More often than not, I miss out on huge opportunities to see great movies in theaters (and other things) because I'm a cheap and lazy college student. I've missed massive classics but more recently, I actually was able to see Kingsman: The Secret Service. After being encouraged to see it after my flatmates at the time had seen it 5 times (not kidding) in theaters, I tagged along to waste the 15 quid. I had never heard of the film prior as I didn't watch TV or sit through advertisements so I didn't exactly know what I was getting into but, LET ME TELL YOU, the fight scenes in this film made
me want to cry and throw my kidneys against a wall.

      Now, not only am I an absolute piece of putty when it comes to fight scenes, but throw in an amazing sound design and loads of gore AND COLIN FIRTH and you've got me rolling around on the floor with happiness. Truth be told, Colin Firth did most of his own stunts. I can't even get out of my own bed without twisting my ankle and Colin Firth is here dodging bullets and knifing churchgoers. 

      The entire film managed to prove to be worth the money I spent on seeing and as soon as I walked out, I wanted to see the damn thing again. The story arch was kinda prodding at some times, and the product placement was nearly tragic, but the humour and the fight scenes were fantastic. And Eggsy is just a gorgeous character and the way he is played makes you want to just pick him up and cradle him. I adore characters that could easily kill me yet still have that puppy dog thing going on. They are truly a gift to me. 

To Grandmother's House We Go

I've recently taken an interest in the Horror genre, even more so now with my involvement in our class project, Fallen Angel. I have watched a lot of horror/thriller films and one thing that really sticks out to me about this genre is just how easy it is to make a terrible film. Horror can be a tricky beast. I would argue that horror is the most emotionally/psychologically involved of any genre in contemporary cinema. Striking fear and evoking a physiological reaction from the viewer is no easy task, as evidence by some of the horror 'flops' we have seen in the past. 

Some notable flops are: 

While these titles range from the bizarre to the down right ridiculous, they are but a small piece of the mountain of failed horror movies out there. 

A recent film coming to theaters soon that has caught my horror eye (and made me groan) is M. Night Shyamalan's The Visit, a horror (comedy?) centered around two children's first visit to their grandma's house. The grandparents are typical, sweet old people, until 9:30pm, when they become some mysterious, cult-driven type of insane. Yeah, that's right. M. Night Shyamalan is making a horror film about visiting your grandmother. At first, I thought this had to be a joke-until I saw good ol' M. Night's name in bold letters at the end of the trailer. Then I knew this was for real. The film comes out next week, and I am very tempted to go see it. 

As a horror fan, I'm not going to lie: my expectations are very low. With the kind of creepy tagline "Don't worry, its only Nana" I don't see this film getting my heart racing or getting me engaged in the narrative in any way. The best horror movies are the ones that not only scare you with jumps and make you squirm through intense long-take shots, but also (like any great film narrative) make you forget you are even watching a film- you become absorbed in the helpless world of the main characters. 

This film made me think long and hard about my own venture into horror with our project Fallen Angel. There is a tasteful way to produce a heart-pounding horror flick, and I hope that we as a group think long and hard about our limitations and capabilities both as students and filmmakers. To avoid this project becoming "hoaky" or missing its mark, careful attention to detail is needed. I think an intense focus on sound design will help push this project in the right direction, as well as stellar casting and editing to put it all together.

 Horror films are meant to mess with your minds and make you feel uncomfortable, a feat that isn't easy to accomplish on a two dimensional screen. We all know examples of horror movies that just simply missed the mark. The Visit may soon be added to that list- hopefully I am pleasantly horrified when I go see it in theaters. I may not have the recipe for the perfect horror movie, (yet-stay tuned) but I just hope that Fallen Angel can live up to expectation in this challenging genre of film.

Better Late Than Never

Last Saturday night, while everyone was getting ready to go out for their first weekend back at IC, I was sitting in my room, alone, in the dark, eating Chinese food (from Wegmans, because why not?), watching Friends.

I had been told since I was--I don't know--born to watch Friends by many people in my life. My friends reference the show all the time and I play along as if I know what they're talking about. Just last week, Taylor Swift performed in Los Angeles as part of her 1989 World Tour and brought Lisa Kudrow out to perform a song that her character, Phoebe Buffay, wrote on Friends called "Smelly Cat." My roommate Ali freaked out and showed me a video. I didn't really know how to respond.

This weekend I decided to give it a shot and Netflix made it very easy by putting all 10 seasons up (YAY). Also, each episode is only 22 minutes long, so it was very easy for me to get right into the show.

I'm not gonna lie, I didn't like the first episode. It seemed like every other cut was a jump cut, I couldn't see why everyone loooooves Rachel, and it just felt the same as every other sitcom I've ever watched. Then I realized that most of the sitcoms I watched growing up were based off the success of Friends; once I let this fact go, it started getting better.

By the fourth episode, I caught myself laughing out loud (literally) at one of Chandler's lines.  

By the fifth, I was invested in the characters. By the seventh, I remembered something important that one of my professors abroad had said about the show. 

Dr. Richard Weight taught my British Youth Culture class, and he often brought up the reasons why youth culture exists. Basically, young adults suddenly had more time to be young. They were going to school, living and learning with people of the opposite sex, and most importantly, not having children. He always put this into fancy terminology and called it "pre-marital cohabitation" and used Friends as the biggest example of this in the media. 

Friends is not just the sitcom that influenced all other sitcoms--it shows a drastic shift in youth culture. People did not go straight from being children to having children. Young people took their time in life and learned to be independent. In the pilot episode of the show, Rachel moves in with Monica when she runs away from her own wedding.

The show is also culturally important because it is one of the first shows where the characters openly discuss dating, childbirth, sex, and sexual orientation. (And I'm only 10 episodes in). Samantha Allen writes in an article for Arts.Mic that, "There would be no New Girl, no Mindy Project, no Sex in the City without Friends."

After reading her this blog, Ali says that she's "proud of me." I don't know how much more of Friends I'll watch, solely because there are many other TV shows I want to see, but I don't regret a minute of it.